Woman’s scalp dislodged by machine lacking safety panels — $8 million settlement

This is a products liability case arising out of an industrial accident in which plaintiff’s hair became entangled in an unguarded glue roller and drive shaft.

On March 5, 2018, the plaintiff, then 40, was working as an operator on a production line at a large furniture plant. Her responsibilities on the production line included operating a glue spreader machine, which applied glue to one side of HDF workpieces. The glue spreader was manufactured and sold to the employer by two of the defendants – a foreign company and its U.S. distributor – in 2010. The glue spreader was eventually installed by the third defendant – a machine sales and servicing company – in July 2011.

Defendant manufacturer’s corporate designee testified the glue spreader was designed to incorporate safety panels to prevent access to the machine where plaintiff was standing. He called them “essential safety devices” for operation of the glue spreader.

The panels were removed at the point of manufacture and allegedly shipped with the machine. The operating manual did not mention the safety panels, and the manufacturer was unable to produce any documentation or witness in the U.S. to establish the panels ever arrived at the plant.

The installer testified he had never installed a glue spreader before and did not refer to any technical documentation from the manufacturer when installing this machine. A photo taken by the installer established there was never a safety panel, accessible emergency stop or guarding of the glue roller and drive shaft at the location where plaintiff was standing when this incident occurred. Plaintiff was following standard operating procedures by checking to see if glue had gotten onto the bottom roller after a test board fell through a grate on the outfeed table. A piece of her restrained hair then became dislodged, stuck to the glue-covered roller and drive shaft, which spooled her hair in and pulled her head to the machine and degloving Plaintiff’s entire scalp from the base of her skull past her eyebrows.

Plaintiff was airlifted to a Level One Trauma Center and underwent emergency surgery to replant her scalp. Replantation proved unsuccessful. She received a total of 67 units of packed red blood cells. Upon careful review of the medical records, it was discovered that, during her initial hospitalization, she experienced nearly five hours of profound hypotension resulting in a hypoxic brain injury. Plaintiff eventually received scalp skin grafts harvested from her lower abdomen and thigh. Her skin grafts are at constant risk of damage and infection requiring surgical repair. Plaintiff is completely disabled from work, has lifetime pain management, recurring bouts of debilitating depression and needs assistance with maintaining her household and managing her care.

Defendants raised contributory negligence, unforeseeable misuse by plaintiff and the employer, and “open and obvious hazard” defenses, among others.

Before mediation, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the foreign manufacturer and its U.S. distributor based on their post-sale failure to warn the employer about the missing safety panels. A sales executive had inspected and photographed the glue spreader just five weeks before plaintiff was injured – describing it as “worn out” and marketing a replacement – but neither he nor anybody who received his email and photographs bothered to warn the employer about the missing safety panels.

The settlement includes direct funding by the defendants’ insurer of a professionally administered Medicare set-aside account (MSA).

The case was successfully mediated after all of the parties’ liability experts were deposed and two weeks before the deadline for Daubert and dispositive motions.

[020-T-100]

Type of action: Products liability
Injuries alleged: Complete scalp degloving injury; PTSD/Major Depressive Disorder; hypoxic brain injury due to massive blood loss requiring 38 transfusions during initial hospitalization; extensive scarring/disfigurement
Name of case: Jane Doe v. Glue Spreader Designer/Manufacturer, Distributor/Seller, and Installer
Tried before: Mediation
Name of judge or mediator: Retired U.S. Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler
Date resolved: 08/25/2020
Verdict or settlement: Settlement
Amount: $8,000,000 (Plaintiff’s attorneys previously settled her workers’ compensation claim. The workers’ compensation settlement included a complete lien waiver totaling approximately $1.2 million. The employer not only waived its lien as to all workers’ compensation benefits and settlement proceeds paid, but also as to all benefits paid under its ERISA health plan.)
Attorney(s) for plaintiff: Glenn W. Pulley, Lynchburg; Matthew W. Broughton, Roanoke; Evans G. Edwards, Roanoke; Amanda M. Morgan;  Lynchburg; Abby M. Broughton, Roanoke
Attorney(s) for defendant: Scott C. Hartin, Virginia Beach; C. Dewayne Lonas, Richmond; Laura May Hooe, Richmond; Matthew Hundley, Richmond
Plaintiff’s experts: Two mechanical engineers; a human factors engineer (tenured Virginia Tech professor); the treating maxillofacial/reconstructive surgeon; the treating psychiatrist; a neuropsychiatrist; a neurologist; a life care planner; a vocational counselor; and an accounting professor.