Randy and Sandra Joseph v. Lavatec, A.G.; Lavatec, Inc.; Mickron Industries, Inc. v. Hampton Hotel Corp., Ascot Associates, and Baring Industries, Inc.

Randy and Sandra Joseph v. Lavatec, A.G.; Lavatec, Inc.; Mickron Industries, Inc. v. Hampton Hotel Corp., Ascot Associates, and Baring Industries, Inc.

Case Name

Randy and Sandra Joseph v. Lavatec, A.G.; Lavatec, Inc.; Mickron Industries, Inc. v. Hampton Hotel Corp., Ascot Associates, and Baring Industries, Inc.

Type of Injury

CRUSH INJURY TO ARM

Occupation

assistant engineer for the Hotel Pennsylvania

Location

Kings, NY

Verdict

This action settled during trial for $1,377,500, plus the waiver of a $ 103,228 Workers’ Compensation lien.

Verdict Amount

$1,377,500.00

Case Details

XVII/5-45 PRODUCT LIABILITY COMMERCIAL WASHER MAINTENANCE COMPANY FAILED TO REPLACE GUARDS CRUSH INJURY TO ARM

SETTLEMENT: Randy and Sandra Joseph v. Lavatec, A.G.; Lavatec, Inc.; Mickron Industries, Inc. v. Hampton Hotel Corp., Ascot Associates, and Baring Industries, Inc. 30459/94 Date of Settlement 3/24/99 Kings Supreme

Pltf. Atty: Steven M. O’Connor of O’Connor & O’Connor, White Plains

This action settled during trial for $1,377,500, plus the waiver of a $ 103,228 Workers’ Compensation lien. Pltf., a 29-year-old assistant engineer for the Hotel Pennsylvania in Manhattan, was injured on 7/30/94 at 11:30 AM when his arm became caught in a tunnel washing machine. Pltf. claimed that he was cleaning the machine’s rollers when his hand and forearm were drawn into its pinch point. He contended that Deft. Lavatec failed to provide interlocks, that the machine was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and that it lacked adequate warnings. He also claimed that the washer should have been designed with fault circuits, which would stop operation of the machine if it was started without the safety guard in place. Pltf. claimed that Deft. Mickron was negligent for removing and not replacing guards and covers, which would have prevented him from accessing the rollers and pinch point, and for instructing Pltf. to clean the rollers if necessary. Defts. claimed that Third-party Defts. Hampton and Ascot should not have allowed Pltf. to work on the machine and that Third-party Deft. Baring was responsible under strict product liability as a seller of a defective product. At trial, Mickron’s employees admitted to removing the machine’s guards despite knowing that the guards were meant to prevent injury. Pltf.’s expert testified that OSHA rules stated that any such machine guards should be immediately replaced if they are removed. Pltf.’s employer admitted that Pltf. had not been given instruction on safe use and repair of the washer.

Injuries: crush injury to the right (dominant) hand and arm. Pltf. would have claimed that he had scars and diminished grip and pinch strength of the hand. Demonstrative evidence: photographs of the tunnel washer, rollers, and guards on floor. Specials: $30,000 for medical expenses; $135,000 for past lost earnings. Settlement apportionment: All Defts. and Third-party Deft., except Mickron, settled for $727,500 ($300, 000 from Lavatec; $212,500 from Hampton; $212,500 from Ascot, plus the waiver of a $103,228 Workers’ Compensation lien; $2,500 from Baring Industries); Third-party Deft. Mickron settled for $650,000.

Pltf. Experts: Howard Edelson, OSHA and safety expert, Plainview; Thomas Fitzgerald, Ph.D., economist, Manhattan; Dr. Steven Glickel, hand surgeon, Manhattan; Dr. Edmond Provder, vocational rehabilitation, Manhattan.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

Vocational Evaluation in Personal Injury Cases
October 20, 2025
Learn how vocational evaluation documents work capacity, future earning losses, and job limits to support personal injury claims. See OAS Inc’s approach.
The Role of a Vocational Expert in Determining Spousal Support
October 6, 2025
In this article, we’ll explain what a vocational expert does, why their role is important in vocational evaluation for divorce & matrimonial cases. Call us now
Life Care Planning Due To Medical Malpractice
September 22, 2025
Discover how life care planning works, why it matters in medical malpractice cases, and how it benefits both patients and the legal system. Contact OAS Today!
Demonstrative Evidence in Vocational Assessments
September 1, 2025
In this article, we’ll explore what demonstrative evidence is, why it matters in vocational assessments, and how it can make complex information easier.
Wrongful Death Case
August 18, 2025
Learn how a vocational evaluation for wrongful death cases can help calculate financial loss, strengthen your claim, and secure fair compensation. Call us Today

CONTACT US