In an unpublished opinion, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a machine which applies labels to bottles is not a power press within the meaning of Labor Code Section 4558 (a)(4).
That statute, which permits the filing of a civil action in cases involving injuries from "power presses," defines such a machine:
As such, the Court threw out the worker's civil action against the employer.
The employee argued that the machine should be considered a "power press" since it was the "pressing motion" of the machine which caused her injury (finger amputation).
The employer filed a declaration from an expert that the machine included NO material-forming "die" and, thus, did not meet the statutory definition.
The Court agreed - in a gruelingly-exhausting analysis - basically concluding: No die, No power press (even if No finger)!
The Court also denied the worker's civil claim on a products liability theory (based on the fact that the employer had modified the machine with a plexiglass guard), stating that there was "no evidence that defendant ever sold the
machine with its modification or placed the modified machine in the stream of
commerce."
Thus, the Court was unwilling to extend a products liability theory to any piece of an employer's equipment just because it has been repaired or slightly modified.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
