Settlement in products liability suit

May, 2003

Markle v. Langston Corporation $825,000 Settlement

Date of Settlement: May 28, 2003.
Court and Case Number: E.D. Pa., No. 02-2607.
Type of Action: Products Liability.
Injuries: Degloving and crush injuries to left hand.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: Alan M. Feldman and Daniel J. Mann, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter & Tanner, Philadelphia.
Defense Attorneys: John A. Orlando, White & Williams, Philadelphia (Prime Technology, Inc.); Donald M. Davis, Margolis Edelstein, Philadelphia (Langston Corporation).
Plaintiffs’ Experts:
Craig D. Clauser, engineering expert; Ronald Kaiser, Ph.D., vocational expert; David Bunin, F.S.A., economic expert.
Defense Experts:
Peter Schwalje, engineering expert; Irene Mendelson, vocational expert; Lee Osterman, hand specialist.
Comments:
James and Linda Markle reached an $825,000 settlement with the Langston Corporation and Prime Technology Inc. over claims that a machine malfunction caused plaintiff James Markle to suffer degloving and crush injuries to his left hand.

On June 29, 2000, Markle, an employee of International Paper, was operating a cardboard box-making machine, which incorporated a Saturn III Flexo-Folder-Gluer manufactured by Langston. Within the Saturn III was a feed table component manufactured by Prime Technology. A steel-covered side bed and a rigid toe guard were on the left-hand side of the machine to protect machine operators from an in-running nip roll.

When Markle leaned his left hand on the side bed during normal operation of the machine, the plaintiffs alleged, the bed was caused to deflect downward, enlarging the nip point so as to permit entry of Markle’s fingers. As a result, he suffered degloving and crush injuries to his left hand.

Markle underwent three surgical procedures for the injuries, but despite extensive therapy and rehabilitation, he was left unable to extend or spread his fingers, causing a 50 to 60 percent loss of the use of his hand.

Markle returned to work on a light duty basis four months after the accident. His loss of earnings was $9,500. Based upon Markle’s ability to earn overtime pay as a result of his injuries, the plaintiffs claimed a future loss of earning capacity, as well as a potential loss of earning capacity in the event that Markle is forced to leave his job and find work in the competitive labor market. The future loss of earning capacity to age 65 ranged from $32,500 to $185,000.

According to the plaintiffs’ counsel, it was the responsibility of Langston and Prime, jointly and severally, to ensure that workers using the machine in an intended fashion were protected from the nip point created by rotating rollers. Extensive discovery disclosed that no testing or evaluation was performed to determine the weight that could be supported by the side beds without causing deflection, plaintiffs contended.

Witnesses from both defendants agreed that, to the extent a deflection occurred which enlarged the nip point to allow introduction of a worker’s fingers, the product was not safe for use.

Each defendant suggested the other was most responsible for eliminating this potentially unsafe condition. According to Langston’s attorney, the Prime side bed, which had the allegedly defective design, was incorporated in the Langston machine, but is a stand-alone component.

Both defendants also questioned whether the steel cover of the side bed could have deflected sufficiently to allow the accident to occur in the manner described by Markle.

The case was settled for the sum of $825,000. Prime contributed $500,000 and Langston contributed $325,000 to the total settlement award.