Do you have to assume workers don’t have common sense?
October 29, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, new court decision, Safety training, Workers' comp
Imagine this. A machine in your workplace has a sharp blade that chops things. Do you really have to tell employees not to stick their hands near the blade when the machine is running?
A worker at David’s Cookies was assigned one day to pack biscotti into boxes after they passed through a chopping machine. Sometimes small bits of cookie caused the machine to get clogged.
The employee had worked at the cookie production plant for a year, but never near the biscotti machine. She didn’t speak or read English.
The biscotti machine got clogged. While it was still running, the employee reached her hand under the machine’s guard. Her hand came into contact with the blade, and its chopping motion caused her significant injuries.
The worker sued her employer for intentional harm.
David’s Cookies pointed out that the machine had a proper guard and a sign with a pictogram that showed workers they shouldn’t stick their hands into the machine. Workers’ comp should cover this case, the employer said.
The employee argued she’d never been given training on the biscotti machine.
The company won when the court threw out the lawsuit. The judge wrote an employer “could … assume that a rational person is not gonna stick his hand in a machine that’s being operated by electrical power” but would “call somebody or pull the plug or disengage the machinery.”
Cite: Cong Su v. David’s Cookies, Superior Court of NJ, 8/10/09.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: common sense, machine guard, warning sign, Workers' comp
Loading ...
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
It’s good to see that common sense can still come from a judicial decision. I feel bad for the woman, but to sue for intentional harm to get big bucks was ridiculous.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
Yes, the employee should exercise common sense, but the company should have trained her on the operation of the machine and made sure she understood the hazards and proper procedure for unclogging the machine. I wouldn’t call this intentional harm but it certainly seems like negligence to me.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Common sense is different from sense of entitlement. The woman probably had common sense, but she probably had a stonger sense of the company “owes me”. This (the USA) is a “sue” happy nation
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Jen, negligence vs. intentional harm is generally the question when deciding if a case is a workers comp case or if the company can be sued. Negligence falls under workers comp. She probably should have been trained better, but there were safety precautions in place.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
We are a nation of idiots. Honestly, even our toothpaste has directions on how to use it. If this lady was stupid enough to stick her hands in a chopping machine, then she got what she deserves. And she doesn’t read or write english?? I don’t mean to beat the dead horse here, but is she a legal or illegal alien? I bet the machine didn’t really get “clogged up”, I bet she was hungry and decided to grab a little piece of cookie and in the process of sticking her hand under the machine’s guard to get the piece of cookie, got cut. Oh well, common sence isn’t what it used to be, but even I know not to stick my hands in a lawn mower while it’s running.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
From my experience, this is an extremely rare ruling, and I would not count on it to save you from your own incidents. There are three significant factors based on the limited information. First, why was the employee not trained on a piece of equipment that she had not used before? Bad. Second, if the machine was “properly guarded”, it would not have allowed entry into a hazardous area while energized. Bad. Third, if the machine jammed regularly, this should have been a red flag for the employer and steps taken to correct the root cause of the problem so no one would have to enter the machinery.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
come on now…. If there was a big machine CUTTING, I sure as hell out figure out real quick not to intentionally stick MY hand in there to clear it out… NOT for any amount of money. Are people really that stupid. Is this generation really that greedy or lazy that they feel a big Worker’s comp settlement is the way to go. Oh My God….
November 5th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I agree with Larry - the company escaped on this one. Normally, the company is automatically held responsible and assumed guilty untill proven innocent. I also agree that the woman should have been properly trained before using the equipment. However, “proper guarding” is often by-passed by employees trying to do a good job. In many companies, this is a termination offense. The jamming issue itself may be a fact of life and procedures should be put in place to minimize or eliminate jams and to safely clear jams (i.e., LOTO). If LOTO procedures are in place, by-passing them is also a terminal offence. HOWEVER, the TRAINING has to be in place. That is management’s responsibility and obligation. This woman was hurt by the “system”. Using Deming’s concepts, MANAGEMENT is responsible for the system. The system includes hiring processes, training processes, etc. All of these factors led to the incident. WHY is the company hiring people who neither read nor speak English? I doubt it is for altruistic reasons. They probably were trying to save money by hiring somewhat “unemployable” people. Language is a huge barrier to productivity, quality , and safety.
Mr. King’s comments are out of line and he should be ashamed of himself. I had the same question regarding the woman’s legal status and I feel that people should live here legally or not at all. However, she is a human being and deserves to be treated as such. I guess I am a compassionate conservative. Better than being a racist.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Larry, I’m with you all the way. However, guards were in place. The worker was smart enough to figure out how to circumvent them (how ignorant was she?). Also, even if she wasn’t properly trained, as she thought she had been (maybe the courts have some evidence that that was not the case), THERE WERE PICTURES on the machine (no english needed). At some point we really need to take responsibility for our own stupidity…
July 6th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Unfortunatly there ARE plenty of folks out there who would be dead right now if breathing was not an “automatic” reflex.
Thats is just the way it is. And you cannot legislate / teach or by ANY other method keep these ‘rocket scientists’ from injuring and killing themselves.
Companies can only try to keep these ‘gems’ from ever working for them by using the HR Dept as a first line of defense to keep from hiring these folks….and if they get by HR then by using every manager and supervisor as a tool to observe and dismiss those who are a danger to themselves and their co-workers. The problem is sometimes these folks are crafty and they ACT like they have sense…..so it makes it difficult o sort the “chaff from the Wheat”.