Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the asimov's-ghost-is-disappointed dept.

El Reg reports

The family of a repair technician killed in an auto parts factory accident is suing five robotics companies they say are responsible.

In a suit [PDF] filed to the Western Michigan US District Court this week, the family of Wanda Holbrook claims that the companies that built, installed, and maintained the robotics at a trailer hitch assembly plant should be held liable for her fatal accident at the plant in 2015.

According to the lawsuit, Holbrook, a journeyman technician, was performing routine maintenance on one of the robots on the trailer hitch assembly line when the unit unexpectedly activated and attempted to load a part into the unit being repaired, crushing Holbrook's head.

Now Holbrook's estate is suing the three companies that built the robots (Fanuc America, Nachi Robotic, and Lincoln Electric) for failing to design adequate safeguards and protections into the robots. They're also suing two other companies that installed and maintained the unit (Flex-N-Gate, Prodomax) for failing to prevent an accident they say would have been avoided had safety been a higher priority.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Ramze on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:46AM (1 child)

    by Ramze (6029) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:46AM (#478793)

    That's just the basic regulatory fine they get for not using adequate safety measures. They might have gotten the same fine if they had been reported, yet failed to upgrade the equipment in a timely manner regardless of whether or not anyone was injured or killed. It's an OSHA fine -- like you'd get for not ensuring people were wearing their hearing protection or hard hats in certain areas, etc.

    The reason few people file lawsuits in cases like this in Michigan is partly because the laws make it difficult to win because one must prove the company intended to harm the employee, but that's mostly because companies have agreed to set aside huge amounts of money to pay out benefits to the families of the injured or deceased. (Companies lobbied to make it difficult to win lawsuits against them, but agreed to set aside fat payouts for injured/killed workers in exchange)

    So, they're not just paying out $7K and going about their business. They're likely paying out a pretty penny to the spouse plus benefits for decades.

    Another article states her employer paid all of her funeral costs -- including flying in family members to Michigan from Florida and Alaska. They also extended her medical benefits to her family. She was a union worker at that employer for at least 12 years in her position & the union workers were also donating to her family. I wouldn't be surprised if the company pays out half a million to a million for her family over the next decade on top of what they're getting now. Her spouse is quoted as saying that her employer is taking excellent care of their family saying they'd been "really, really good" to him.

    Also, Michigan's OSHA doesn't play around with the fines... they recently fined another business over half a million for a workplace death. It just depends on the severity of the infraction. Most infractions are small and are fines of only a 2 to 8 thousand dollars.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:09PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:09PM (#479025) Journal

    Exactly.

    It's the employer's responsibility to ensure their employees follow the Lock-Out-Tag-Out policy (which makes it impossible for equipment to activate while work is happening).

    However, it takes an employee to ignore that policy for an incident like this to happen.