If you have suffered a serious physical injury at work, you will probably be entitled to wage benefits to help you through your period of disability and medical benefits for as long as you need medical care to treat your work injury. In most Maine cases, wage benefits are calculated as 80% of your post-tax average weekly wage. Similar calculations are made in most states, including our northern New England neighbors, New Hampshire and Vermont, although every state uses a slightly different formula. No injured worker gets lost income benefits that equal his or her take home pay, which is one of the reasons why being out on workers comp benefits is so hard on workers and their families.

One common question associated with workplace injuries is why an injured worker cannot sue an employer for negligence. In most states, employers are immune from basic negligence claims when an employee of the company is the injured party. This rule, which also bars suits against co-workers, dates to the early 1900s, when workers compensation statutes became law in most states. Before that, if a worker was injured on the job, he or she could sue the negligent employer. However, such claims had to be pursued through the courts just like every other personal injury claims. For at least two reasons, that approach does not work too well for injured workers. First, personal injury cases cannot be evaluated and should not be settled until the worker is fully healed. Healing can take years, and injured workers cannot wait that long to have their medical bills paid or to have an income. Second, personal injury claims filed in court are fault-based claims—the injured person must prove that the defendant’s carelessness caused the injury. In some work injury situations, it is not possible to prove that the injury was caused by the fault of the employer.

Examples of work injuries not caused by the fault of the employer abound, but some of the obvious ones are gradual injuries from repetitive motion, back injuries caused by lifting, and vehicle accidents caused by careless drivers who are not co-employees with the injured worker. In all of these cases, if there were no workers comp system, the employee would get nothing from the employer.

Another example of an injury caused by something other than the employer’s fault is a product liability claim based on a machine malfunction or product defect. Without the workers compensation system, there would be no medical payments or wage replacement benefits when an improperly filled gas cylinder explodes, when a saw blade or grinding wheel flys apart due to defects in manufacture, or when a vehicle transmission unexpectedly slips into gear. Ladder failure, chair failure, electric arcing from poor system design and mislabeled chemicals are all sources of work injuries where the employer may not be at fault. In such cases, workers comp benefits are an important lifeline for the injured worker and his family.

In some of these cases, such as those caused by negligent drivers and faulty products, it may be possible to get immediate assistance with medical bill and income replacement and to also pursue a case in court against the person or entity responsible for the injury. Such cases are known as “third party” cases because they are brought against someone other than a co-worker or the employer—someone remote enough under the law to be considered a third party.

Some cases are complicated by a combination of third party fault and a share of employer negligence. For example, if there is a defect in a transmission or punch press but the employer allows its use despite the problem, the employer might deserve some criticism and some blame for allowing the unsafe product to be used and thus contributing to the injury. It is in these cases that injured employees may legitimately ask, “How can they get away with this?”

The only answer to that question is the one mentioned above. When the workers comp system was set up about a hundred years ago, a basic trade was made. The employer gained immunity from a negligence suit, but took on the obligation to make immediate payments for lost income and medical payments. That legislative trade is not perfect, and it does not work out well in every case, but for most injured workers it is a far better arrangement than one in which the employer pays nothing if it is not at fault, and the employer pays only after being proven guilty of wrongdoing, which may not occur until years after the injury.

If you or someone you love has been injured in a riding mower accident, call Berman and Simmons to discuss what happened. We have handled these cases before, and are able to quickly examine the mower and the location where the injury happened and advise you about possible legal rights and remedies. We can also quickly arrange for an engineer or other lawn mower expert to assist in reviewing the case. Either way, we would be glad to assist you by sharing our expertise, experience and insight. All of our work is done on a contingent fee basis, so there is no charge unless or until we are successful. Call our toll free number 1-800-244-3576 is our toll free number or visit our website www.bermansimmons.com to learn more about our work and our lawyers. We are easy to talk to and ready to help.

In one case, a person suffered a head injury due to a defective handle design on a garden cart. The cart was purchased in pieces with assembly instructions. The handle (a bracked-shaped part when viewed from above: [ ) was made of tubular steel and designed to slide into brackets, one  bolted to each side of the cart. The design anticipated that the user would grip the long side  of the handle (the vertical portion illustrated above) and push the cart in front of him or her.  As long as the user pushed the cart, the tubular steel handle pressed harder into the brackets.  However, the designer did not provide bolts, screws or other fasteners to restrain the handle in the brackets, so when the user pulled backwards on the handle with a heavy load in the cart, the handle pulled out of the brackets and came free in the client’s hand. The client fell and suffered a serious injury because the defect in the design. It was entirely foreseeable that a user would pull backwards on the cart, and that someone might lose balance and get hurt. The need to fasten the handle would have been obvious to either a thoughtful designer or any safety engineer who reviewed the design, and manufacturers have a duty to eliminate obvious and unnecessary hazards from their products.

Another of my handle failure cases involved the pull strap on an overhead door on the back of a delivery truck. The back doors of such trucks are generally made in hinged panels mounted on rollers so they can roll up on tracks, one mounted on each side of the door opening  at the back of the truck. There is usually a spring provided with such doors to assist in the  task of opening them because they are too heavy for a person to lift alone.  Even with a spring assist for lifting, roll up truck doors are heavy. To keep the weight down, manufacturers commonly make them by sandwiching a lightweight core between a rigid matierial such as plywood on the inside and a light weight weatherproof aluminum on the outside. The sandwich is held together with rivets which sometimes pop apart. Rivet failure in the door sandwich is not such a bad problem becuase there are many rivets, the rollers on each outside edge of the doors are bolted on, and the loosening of the sandwich is not likely to cause injury. The problem arises when the same rivets are used to fasten the handle  (usually a metal plate and a nylon strap)  used for pulling the door up and down. When an unsuspecting worker standing on the narrow rear shelf of the truck pulls on the strap to raise or lower the door, his or her balance depends on the strap staying in place. When the strap comes loose, the worker is highly likely to fall off the truck. Serious injuries occur when people fall from three or four feet onto cement or paved parking lots.

Another sort of handle failure case is reflected in a recent product recall. See  the article at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10157.html.  The Consumer Products Safety Commission and the manufacturer have recalled a machete due to the risk that the handle grip is inadequate and unsafe. While using this particular machete, it is possible for one’s hand to slip off the handle forward onto the blade. Since the blades are razor sharp, this can result in  severe laceration. A properly designed handle would provide a “stop” to prevent the hand from sliding forward, or at least to deflect the hand and fingers away from the blade should a slipping accident occur.

These are just three examples of ways that poor handle design can cause injuries. There are many more circumstances in which severe and catastrophic injuries can result from handle failure or poor design.

If you or someone you know falls, suffers a severe cut or is otherwise hurt due to a poorly designed or defectively fastened handle, you should immediately preserve any and all available evidence. The handle itself and all related hardware, especially failed rivets, nuts or bolts, warnings and instructions, and photographs of such evidence as the truck door described above (which showed a pattern of rivet failure) are very important. Making the evidence available to an engineer, or at least a lawyer with  experience in such cases, can mean the difference between success and failure in the case. Without specific evidence demonstrating the conditions under which the handle failed and why it should not have failed, it may be impossible to prove the case.

You are always welcome to consult with Berman and Simmons free of charge on any personal injury case. If we decide that we can help, and if you choose to hire us, we will handle the case on a contingent fee basis, which means that we will not be paid unless we win. When we settle the case or win at trial, our fee will be a percentage of the recovery. 

In the context of information exchange in a lawsuit, called discovery in civil cases, defendants often exaggerate the scope of information they claim to be a trade secret and demand that  plaintiff keep the information hidden as condition of producing it. For example, if a component part of a machine has been modified to eliminate a defect, the manufacturer may claim that the new design is a  trade secret which should be kept from the public. However,  legimate trade secret protection does not to extend to information that has been otherwise publicized.  Replacement parts on equipment sold publicly can be seen, measured and tested by anyone who is aware that the parts are present. The only benefit to keeping details about replacement parts secret is that people injured by the prior version of the product may not realize that they were injured by a defect that has now been eliminated from the product. This kind of secret is not what the law or the courts intend to protect.

In the context of settlement, the secrecy problem is worse.  Once plaintiff has gone to the expense and trouble of bringing a lawsuit to convince the defendant that he or she can prove the product to be defective, and after trying to defeat the plaintiff in every way possible, the defendant may agree to settle.  Often, such settlement agreements are conditioned on the plaintiff’s promise of secrecy and the demand that all evidence of defect, all proof such as test results, alternative designs, deposition transcripts, expert reports, and damaging photographs, be destroyed. In such cases, an injured plaintiff’s resources and energy may be exhausted and the will to fight for the protection of other victims may be overcome by the need for peace,  the need for resolution of conflict, and, frankly, the need for settlement money. At that point, there is no one looking out for the public interest in the free flow of information. The defendant often takes advantage of its market power and clamps a demand for secrecy on all that the plaintiff has learned.

Individual plaintiffs have a hard time fighting for the broader public interest in limiting confidentiality orders and secrecy demands to information which can legitimately be labeled secret. Protecting the broader public interest requires the attention and efforts of those of us not directly involved as parties to a particular case. To join the fight against secrecy in litigation,  read the postings on the dangers of excessive court secrecy at www.publicjustice.net

Public Justice is a great organization dedicated to protecting every individual’s right to access to the courts and the information that flows from enforcement of individual rights. It is one of the leaders in the fight against courtroom secrecy.  You can join the fight against secrecy by supporting Public Justice or by joining as a member.

If you talk with other lawyers about us, they will say:

- Berman and Simmons has more experience representing injured people in products liability cases than any other firm in the state;

- Berman and Simmons has more resources available to help people injured by defective products liability than any other firm in the state;

- Berman and Simmons has more jury trial experience in personal injury cases than any other firm in the state.

If you would rather settle your case than go to trial, why do you need an experienced trial lawyer?

- Although most personal injury cases settle before trial, insurance companies and their lawyers know which lawyers are ready, willing and able to try a case and which are not. If your lawyer is not respected by the other side, or is not really ready to try the case to a jury, he or she is highly unlikely to get the best possible settlement offer from the defense. At Berman and Simmons, we prepare our cases to be tried and our opponents know that.

Here is a county by county description of some of the product liability cases we have worked on:

Androscoggin County

-Ladder failure- fall, multiple fractures

-Metal bold failure- eye injury

Aroostock County

-Hay baling machinery- death

-Potato harvesting machinery- arm entanglement

Cumberland County

-Carbon monoxide leak- brain injury

-Farm machinery- hand crush injury

-Ladder failure- fall, skul fracture, brain injury

Franklin County

-Medication defect- failure to warn, birth defect

Knox County

-Soda bottle explosion- loss of an eye

-Bucket loader- transmission control crush injury leading to death

Oxford County

-Rifle defect- drop fire, bullet wound

-Safety equipment failure- severe laceration from chain saw

-Ski binding failure- paralysis

Penobscot County

-Hydraulic cylinder explosion- burns

Sagadahoc County

-Gas explosion- burns

Somerset County

-Gas explosion- burns leading to death

York County

-Saw mill saw blade fragmentation failure- severe lacerations

State of New Hampshire

-Safety equipment failure- defective design of insulated work platform for electrical worker, electrocution, burns leading to amputation and death.

Gas powered refrigerators have been in use since at least the 1930s. They are particularly suited for use in places where the electrical grid does not run, such as fishing, hunting and logging camps.  Partly because they are used in remote locations and partly because of the defective design of flues, vents and burners in certain models, gas refrigerators should be considered to be extremely dangerous.

Gas refrigerators can be fueled by natural gas (which is usually mostly methane mixed with other combustible gases), or LP (liquified petroleum) gas, the most common of which is propane. The danger in all of these fuels lies in incomplete combustion, which occurs when either the flow of intake air or the venting of exhaust becomes disrupted. Either problem, or a combination of both, can result in the discharge of carbon monoxide, an odorless, colorless and deadly poison.

Sellers of gas refrigerators and government regulators have known for many years that gas refrigerators are prone to vent problems and thus very dangerous. Set out below is a report from the Consumer Product Safety Commission describing particular problems with certain Servel models which have caused many brain injuries and deaths through release of carbon monoxide.

The Servel models described below is just one of many dangerous gas refrigerators.  Several older models from other makers present the same risks to health and safety.  For instance, there have been a number of reported injuries and deaths from carbon monoxide involving the Consul models manufactured by Whirlpool S.A.

Gas refrigerators are most common in remote camps because compressed gas is the easiest fuel to transport into the woods. The remote setting of these camps contributes to the danger of the refrigerators in the sense that they are often used only seasonally. People do not think to service appliances that are used only intermittently, it is expensive and inconvenient to get service personnel in, and long periods of disuse in an environment which goes from extremely hot to extremely cold, and which is often damp, leads to rust, corrosion, dust, cobwebs, and insect nesting. All of these contaminants disrupt air flow and damage burner and vent components, leading to carbon monoxide production.

If you have a gas refrigerator,  you should consider whether it is safe to continue to use it. Service may help eliminate or minimize the risk of serious injury, but that might not be enough.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a gas refrigerator or other gas appliance, you should call Berman and Simmons or another law firm with experience with such cases. We have  handled asphyxiation cases associated with many home appliances in addition to refrigerators, including cook stoves, furnaces and space heaters.

We have also represented many families injured bya different risk associated with LP, propane and natural gas:  explosions.  If a pilot light or other component fails,  or if the seller/delivery person fails to properly test for leaks in the gas distribution system, gas can leak into the living space and lead to catastrophic burns and death.  Visit our website and other entries in this blog for  further information and commentary.

John Sedgewick, Esq.

Berman and Simmons

1 800 244 3576

www.bermansimmons.com

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

1. CPSC, Warns That Old Servel Gas Refrigerators Still In Use Can Be Deadly

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Government safety experts continue to warn consumers to stop using Servel gas refrigerators manufactured between 1933 and 1957 due to the risk of carbon monoxide leakage in deadly quantities.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports there have been at least 39 incidents in the U.S. involving these old Servel gas refrigerators, causing 22 carbon monoxide-related deaths and 55 injuries nationwide. There also have been incidents reported in Ontario, Canada, causing 60 deaths.

Because historical sales and distribution records of these early Servel models are unavailable, it is not possible to determine who still owns and uses these refrigerators. The Servels continue to be used in hunting cabins, vacation cottages and remote areas of the nation where there is no electricity, or where gas is the preferred energy source.

Over a period of time, especially if the refrigerator has not been used recently, the gas burner can be fouled by dust, dirt, rust or other obstructions. Any gas refrigerator with an improperly adjusted or partially plugged burner can produce substantial amounts of carbon monoxide.

Consumers can call the Servel Corrective Action Committee (SCAC) toll free at (800) 782-7431 anytime to receive a rebate package that includes instructions for disposing of their Servel gas refrigerator. Consumers who properly dispose of their old Servels will receive a $100 rebate plus reimbursement for reasonable disposal costs.

Since this recall program was launched in 1990, more than 22,000 refrigerators have been destroyed. On average, 100 new requests for rebates are mailed to SCAC monthly, demonstrating that there are still many more in use.

Consumers who insist on keeping their old Servel refrigerators should move them to an outdoor shelter, shed or garage not connected to the house or cottage. CPSC urges owners to secure or restrict access to refrigerators kept outside and, when discarding any refrigerator, to remove its door. This will prevent children from playing in the refrigerator and possibly getting trapped and suffocating inside.

CPSC advises that all gas refrigerators be serviced regularly by licensed technicians in order to assure their safe operation. They also should be inspected after they are moved and before they are turned on after a seasonal shutdown. Special attention should be paid to blockages in burners and flues.

No longer in business, Servel manufactured gas refrigerators between 1933 and 1957. The Servel refrigerators in question are no longer being produced and are in no way associated with the Dometic Corp., the current manufacturer of Servel brand name products.

—

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC’s work to ensure the safety of consumer products – such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals – contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC’s Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC’s teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC’s Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

A handle is something that we expect to be able to grab and move to achieve a specific purpose. We expect that, gripping a handle, we can open a door, lift a chainsaw, hammer a nail.  When we say we have “got a handle” on a problem, we mean that it is under control. Lawyers who are asked to handle cases are expected to direct and guide them to a proper conclusion. In all contexts, we think of a handle as something secure, reliable and useful.

When handles fail, they may cause serious injury. Discussed below are three examples of handles that failed, surprising the people who relied on them. The handles were not secure, reliable, or useful, and became the subject of product liability cases. Each case represents a different failure mode. Considered together, the cases provide insight into analyzing other possible handle defect cases.

The Gardener’s Cart

An amateur gardener bought an unassembled cart, in a cardboard box, from a local retailer. The cart had two bicycle-type wheels with a plastic tub between, and was held together by a tubular metal frame. The handle was an extension of the frame, with two longer tubes, one on each side, coming diagonally up toward the user and a cross piece, also tubular, that slipped into and connected the two longer tubes.

The gardener was not mechanically inclined, but the assembly instructions were simple and he was able to get the cart built. He took it out to the garden and used it for hauling weeds, sod, fertilizer, mulch, etc.

As long as he was pushing the cart, it worked fine. One day he was pulling it, trying to get a small load of stones up over a threshold into his barn, when the handle suddenly came off in his hand. The gardener fell back, banged his head, and suffering a serious head injury.

The family gathered the parts of the cart and spoke to a lawyer. They bought an exemplar cart, also in a box with instructions, from the same retailer. The exemplar was identical to the defective cart. The instructions confirmed that the failed cart had been assembled as directed by the designer.

The explanation for the accident, and the defect, quickly became apparent.  The design of the handle called for the cross piece to slip into the two side tubes, but did not call for a fastener to hold it in place. As noted above, as long as the cart was being pushed, the cross piece and the side tubes were being pushed together. With light pulling backwards, friction prevented the cross piece from being pulled apart from the side pieces. With heavy pulling, however, the friction fit between the pieces was not powerful enough to hold the pieces together. The cross piece came off in the gardener’s hand because the designer failed to provide a fastener, such as a ten cent bolt, to hold it together.

If you or someone you know has been injured by a product that was designed without proper fasteners, or with defective nuts or bolts, speak to an attorney with experience in proving such cases.

Common uses of the rivet have included connecting the steel girders of skyscrapers, the steel plates of ship hulls, and the aluminum skin of airplanes.

Rivets may fail because they are made from material that is weaker than specified, because the shafts are not fully upset and shortened, because the overall joint design is flawed, or for a combination of these reasons.

As noted above, the theory of riveting is that the ability of the rivet material to withstand stretching forces is greater than the forces trying to tear the connected joint apart.  An example of poor joint design would be a circumstance where an engineer miscalculates the stretch resistance of the rivet material. If that is overestimated, the stretching forces produced by the connected parts while they are in use may be greater than the rivet can bear, leading to joint failure.  Poor quality material might cause the same problem.

Failure to properly shorten the shaft of the rivet during installation causes a slightly different problem.  If the rivet is not shortened enough, the joint between the connected parts will not be tight. If the joint is not tight, it is likely that the forces on the rivet will not be limited to a either a “straight pull” or stretching force or a perpendicular or shearing force as anticipated by the design engineer. In a loose joint, the forces on the rivet probably include a diagonal or bending force as the connected parts move in response to the various forces they encounter. In a skyscraper, the forces could come from wind or earthquake. In a ship, the forces could come from wind, waves, or cargo loads. Once the forces on a joint deviate from a “straight pull” or a shear, the stretch resistance or shear strength of the rivet material are no longer the critical strength issues. With bending forces on the joint, the engineering analysis of the strength of the rivet material must be entirely different. It is not possible to use a rivet to reliably overcome bending forces because there are too many unknown factors that can lead to joint failure.

Riveted joints are designed to hold together on the assumption that the components that they connect will remain close and firmly held to each other.

Rivet failure has been known to cause personal injury in many circumstances, and can be the basis for a successful product liability case. One example from a real case involves a handle which broke off of a delivery truck door. The driver was assuming that the handle would remain firmly attached as he pulled down on the door to get it closed. When it suddenly came off in his hand, he lost his balance and fell from the back of the truck onto pavement and suffered broken bones and nerve injury.

Whenever there is a rivet failure leading to personal injury, it is helpful, and maybe necessary to proving the case, to recover the broken parts.  Analysis of those parts can reveal whether the failure resulted from defective rivet material, bending, stretching or other factors. Understanding the cause of the failure is critical to proving a product defect. Was it the raw material of the rivet, the design of the joint, the construction of the riveted joint, or perhaps a failure of maintenance that lead to the injury?

If the broken parts are not available, prompt inspection of the remaining parts may help prove the case. For example, in the case of the handle that broke free from the delivery truck door, the door was a sandwich of materials (an inner and outer aluminum skin covering an strong but weather-pervious core material) which was held together by similar rivets. Inspection of the door revealed a pattern of rivet failure, leading to discovery of similar problems in other doors, and helping to prove that the basic door design was defective and its construction technique was negligent. The rivets were not strong enough for the purpose for either holding the basic door together or keeping the handle in place, and they were poorly installed. There was a history of other similar incidents, and the seller of the door failed to warn customers that a string of similar doors had failed.

If you or someone you know is injured by the failure of a rivet or other fastener, whether it be a screw, a bolt, or a nail, contact a lawyer with experience in similar cases. Getting the right lawyer and engineering expert involved early in the case may be critical to a successful outcome.

Lawyers and forensic engineers get involved in analyzing plastic chair failure when the failure causes people to fall and get seriously hurt.

In all such cases, the first step is to preserve the broken parts and protect the fracture surfaces from further damage. That includes avoiding any effort to push or touch the fracture surfaces together in an informal effort to “reconstruct” what happened. Touching fracture surfaces in any way can destroy evidence, and such informal reconstruction does not advance the case in any way. If you observe or are involved in an incident in which components break off a molded plastic chair, wrap each piece separately as soon as possible to protect it from physical harm, exposure to chemicals, and other damaging events.

In thinking about whether personal injury damages may be available to an injured person in connection with chair failure, it is important to consider how the chair was used. If a very cheap chair is sold for use in an industrial or commercial setting, such as in a restaurant, hotel, conference center, or school, the legal cause of the failure may be the choice of a low budget product rather than a defect in the chair itself. It is patently unreasonable to assume that the cheapest form of molded plastic chair will stand up to frequent and heavy use. In such a case, a successful claim may be brought against those who sold or selected the inexpensive, lightweight chair when they knew it was likely to get heavy use.

If the chair was properly selected for the setting in which it was used but still fails in a way that causes injury, the failure may be the result of unforeseeable misuse, such as damage during shipping or being thrown out the window of a college dorm, or factory failure such as the use of contaminated raw materials or poor controls in the molding and inspection process. Testing failed plastic materials is very expensive, and if you think about using scientific methods to determine what caused the failure, it is easy to see why preserving and protecting the broken parts is so important. Testing the purity and consistency of plastic is done by running numerous tests on multiple samples of a specified size and shape. One must have enough sample material to test, and you will want to be sure that the samples being tested came from either the exact chair involved in the injury or one purchased from the same source in the same lot.

One place to look for evidence that plastic chair failure was caused by defects in materials or workmanship is to ask about other similar incidents. The wholesale supplier of the chair and the owner or the failed chair (particularly institutional users who may have purchased hundreds of similar chairs in one or more shipments to furnish classrooms or dormitories) may have knowledge of frequent or regular similar failures. Such evidence is very important in showing both foreseeability and causation: the injury was not an isolated unavoidable accident, but one of a pattern of similar failures. When there is evidence of widespread failure, defendants are anxious to make it available to the plaintiff in order to pass blame up the chain from owner to wholesaler to manufacturer. It is almost always good for injured people to have defendants fighting among themselves.

One way to protect oneself from the failure of inexpensive plastic chairs is to avoid buying or using them. As noted above, they are cheap for a reason. If you must use a cheap molded chair, inspect it before you sit down. If it is cracked or flimsy, refuse to use it. If you are sitting in such a chair and hear a crack or feel that it is just too wobbly, stand up carefully and find a different and better place for you and your family and friends to sit. Protecting yourself is always the best option.

If you or a friend is injured by a chair that fails, get the best medical treatment available to you, gather and protect all of the failed parts, and call a lawyer with experience in similar cases. An experienced product liability lawyer may be able to prove the case with a minimum of expensive scientific testing and engineering analysis, which is a good way to improve the bottom line outcome of the plaintiff’s case.

As Six Sigma has become a powerful tool for industry, understanding it can be a powerful advantage for a plaintiff’s lawyer in a product liability case.

Six Sigma Basics

Six Sigma is based on the premise that manufacturing processes can be systematically improved to the point where defects are reduced to as few as 3.4 defects per million opportunities. It is distinguished from earlier quality engineering programs by the intensity of the planning, goal setting and discipline it requires from employees at every level of the companies which adopt it. Six Sigma demands an unwavering commitment to measurement, feedback, analysis and improvement. While expensive to implement, Six Sigma has consistently produced business results which prove that no modern manufacturer or seller can afford to be without it.

Six Sigma as a Tool for Plaintiff’s Lawyers

Six Sigma can be useful to plaintiffs’ lawyers in product liability cases in a number of ways.

First, understanding Six Sigma can help in controlling discovery costs. Six Sigma companies engage in a vigorous regime of defining problems, measuring critical elements of the production process, analyzing results and changing features that produce bad parts.  Using discovery requests to obtain the right data, and knowing how to read and use it, is much cheaper than wading through days of depositions trying to gather background facts on the product in question.

Second, one of the fundamental challenges in many products cases is to fully understand what the product, or a failed component, was designed to do. Because Six Sigma is based on measuring products against a specific and detailed standard, documentation available through a Six Sigma program should lead counsel to the product specifications, the sole purpose of which is to articulate the defendant’s design expectations. If the product did not meet the specifications, the plaintiff may be able to prove the defect by comparison of the product to the defendant’s own standards.

Third, although Six Sigma is most often used to eliminate the production of defective parts in manufacturing operations, its principles can be used to improve the design process, as well. A thorough understanding of those principles will help a plaintiff’s lawyer analyze and critique a defendant’s design efforts.

Finally, if the defendant has not adopted Six Sigma as a quality control system, it is likely that it either has no systematic quality control at all, or that its system is poorly run and ineffective. These facts can support arguments on both unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant and product defect theories: bad products got into the marketplace because the defendant did not care enough to watch what it was selling. It is very difficult for any company to justify having an ineffective quality control system in today’s business environment.

Conclusion

Six Sigma brings discipline and systematic improvement to smart companies. Smart lawyers will understand Six Sigma concepts and use them to win the best possible results for clients injured by defective products.