Man's penis and testicles cut off in industrial accident

[SplitDik (imported)]

Injury to the pelvic region by a foam slicing machine ...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/33909.htm

Man Loses Penis in Industrial Accident

By MARIMER MATOS

ShareThis

ORLANDO (CN) - A temporary employee claims the Future Foam Carpet Cushion Co. gave him no training on a peeler machine from which a safety guard had been removed, and its "surgically sharp steel blade sliced through [his] pelvis, cutting off his penis and testicles while virtually cutting his body in half."

Edgardo Toucet sued Future Foam, a 3-year-old Florida producing company, and Baumer of America, which made the peeler machine, which is used to cut foam for carpet padding.

Peeling machines have a thin blade that spans the width of the mammoth machine, which slice blocks or cylinders of foam as they pass through.

The complaint states: "At some point prior to any work-related activities with Future Foam, Future Foam removed protective guarding that was intended to prevent workers from coming in contact with the machine's steel cutting blade."

Toucet was working through nonparty Spartan Staffing. "Toucet did not ordinarily operate the machine and had not received any training in the operation of the machine and specifically to conduct the work that he was asked to do when this incident occurred," the complaint states.

"Future Foam removed or had removed protective guarding that was intended to prevent workers from coming in contact with the machine's steel cutting blade," the complaint states. "Based upon the orientation of the surgically sharp steel blade and lack of protective guarding, it was virtually certain to any reasonable person and specifically to Future Foam that a worker would come in contact with the surgically sharp steel blade while changing out the foam core."

The state of the machine "was in violation of one or more state and/or federal regulations," the complaint states. He claims that "Future Foam had been warned about the danger posed by the subject model peeler machine," and that due to the removal of the safety guard, "it was virtually certain at the time of the subject incident that a worker would be killed or injured while using the machine."

Toucet says he "was instructed by Future Foam to change out the foam core on the subject peeler machine. When Toucet attempted to release the mandrel, the surgically sharp steel blade was exposed and activated thereby slicing through the pelvic region of Toucet. The surgically sharp steel blade sliced through Toucet's pelvis cutting off his penis and testicles while virtually cutting his body in half.

"The mandrel release mechanism, in the condition it was at the time of this incident, constitutes an extreme hazard."

Toucet seeks punitive damages for "virtual certainty," negligence, strict liability, disfigurement, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of earning capacity.

He is represented by Gene Odom of Brandon.

[speedvogel (imported)]

I had a customer that made foam mattresses for sofa-beds. They used these machines and had a very similar accident. The victim, in the case at my customer was literally sliced virtually in half lengthwise. He fell in front of the knife mechanism that had the guard removed as was the one reported above. Evidently, it is a common practice to remove these guards as the foam tends to jam on them.

Doc

[Rusty Dai (imported)]

Maybe the manufacturer will resolve the issues by re-designing them and then replace the safety parts removed on these machines.

Maybe after the machine kills someone?

[Losethem (imported)]

Seems to me the people who manufactured the machine have zero liability in this, but are probably named because they have deeper pockets. The manufacturer provided a safety mechanism, the customer who purchased the machine took it off which resulted in the injury to their employee.

It might have been a royal pain in the ass to unjam the machine, but the safety guard was there for a reason.

[Hash (imported)]

Can you imagine having your genitals cut off in this way? Certainly unique:) and did they or were they able to reattach his penis and testicles? What a mess this must have been for the ER surgeons to tackle. What would you do first? Stem the flow or loss of blood, I would suppose. Then figure out what you could do or should do. Saving the man's life would take precedence over putting his genitals back on, although they may have been one and the same thing for the surgeons. I doubt that everything was put back on though, since there are always quick necessary decisions to be made and the delicacy of the surgery and micro-surgery must have caused them to make concessions. Watching the videos I can't imagine how this accident happened unless the man was straddling the machine or bumping his crotch against it, another one for the Darwin Awards? http://darwinawards.com/stupid/stupid2000-05.html O.K. maybe I'm being too cruel, I apologize, accidents happen, but I'm still dumb founded.

Foam peeling videos: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjU5MjgwNTI=.html

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XODEyMzU2NDg=.html

Looking at different peeling machines, it's hard to figure out how the man did this:

http://www.baumerofamerica.com/products.htm

http://www.mengshen.com/foam_machine_eyp.htm

http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/product ... chine.html

http://njbcdsb.en.made-in-china.com/pro ... chine.html

[speedvogel (imported)]

Maybe the manufacturer will resolve the issues by re-designing them and then replace the safety parts removed on these machines.

Maybe after the machine kills someone?

The machine in question in the incident at my customer has killed the worker in that situation. It is not an accident when a safety appliance has been removed from a production machine. It is pure negligence on the part of the company that owns the machine.

Oh yes, the machines shown in the videos are babies. They have a stationary knife and carry the product to the cutter. The ones in question are huge, over 50 feet wide and have movable cutting knives. They are dangerous if operated properly and with all guards in place. I also notice that Baumer has taken down the description of the horizontal cutters which are the culprits.

Speed

[Rusty Dai (imported)]

I still think that if the safety device is jamming the material, there may be something wrong with the design.

I'm not suggesting the manufacturer is or should be held liable for the man losing his genitals, the other losing his life. However, I can re-think that if I'm called for jury duty in a trial for this.

It is possible that the material that jammed is outside of the normal parameters for this machine. It is possible the operator was mostly at fault, and the employer for placing an untrained worker on this equipment. Could also be the safety equipment was in fact functioning correctly and some prior worker just didn't like it.

I'm suggesting that the machine may need to be redesigned as multiple users are removing the safety device as it is may not be functioning correctly. There have been severe injuries and death. It seems to me that there may be a design flaw. Maybe that should be fixed before someone else is injured.

[Losethem (imported)]

I still think that if the safety device is jamming the material, there may be something wrong with the design.

I'm not suggesting the manufacturer is or should be held liable for the man losing his genitals, the other losing his life. However, I can re-think that if I'm called for jury duty in a trial for this.

Perhaps with the design as far as it is supposed to work in cutting the material intended, but with a safety guard in place, it is simply an inconvenience to the customer that it jams - the manufacturer of the machine isn't liable - the person who took off the safety guard is. That guard is there for a reason. The manufacturer did the appropriate thing.

I would never convict the manufacturer of this device for the accident - they took measures to provide safety. The people who purchased the machine took the guard off, so they are liable.

It is possible that the material that jammed is outside of the normal parameters for this machine. It is possible the operator was mostly at fault, and the employer for placing an untrained worker on this equipment. Could also be the safety equipment was in fact functioning correctly and some prior worker just didn't like it.

Bingo. The people who purchased and were using the machine are at fault since they removed the safety guard.

I'm suggesting that the machine may need to be redesigned as multiple users are removing the safety device as it is may not be functioning correctly. There have been severe injuries and death. It seems to me that there may be a design flaw. Maybe that should be fixed before someone else is injured.

Yes, perhaps it needs a redesign, but I'd still say the manufacturer is not to blame. Having to unjam to machine because the safety guard is in place is a maintenance issue, not a safety issue. The manufacturer is only liable if the guard was in place and the employee still suffered injury or death.