Trial Law | Bodily Injury, Negligence & Civil Suits
Call Us. 312-368-1266

Machinery Injury

Jury Instructions-IL > Product Liability > Machinery Injury

JESUS CEJA v STORK FABRICATORS, INC and  UNISOURCE WORLDWIDE, INC.  07 L 12349

Plaintiff’s hand was injured when a packaging shrink wrap machine closed upon his hand while he was near and working on the machine. The “jaws” that trapped his hand stayed together rather than “pop up” when coming into contact with an object over ¼ of an inch. (somewhat like a garage door sensor). The manufacturer was sued under strict liability maintaining and assumption of risk defense.

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case,  and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language)

            Now that the evidence has concluded, I will further instruct you as to the law and your duties.  The law regarding this case is contained in the instructions I will give to you.  You must consider the Court’s instructions as a whole, not picking out some instructions and disregarding others.

            It is your duty to resolve this case by determining the facts and following the law given in the instructions. Your verdict must not be based upon speculation, prejudice, or sympathy. Each party, whether a corporation or an individual, should receive your same fair consideration.

            I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

            You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life in evaluating what you see and hear during trial.

            You are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will decide the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In evaluating the credibility of a witness you may consider that witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, memory, manner, interest, bias, qualifications, experience, and any previous inconsistent statement or act by the witness concerning an issue important to the case.

            The use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your deliberations violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them

            You must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not receive a written transcript of the testimony when you retire to the jury room.

            An opening statement is what an attorney expects the evidence will be. A closing argument is given at the conclusion of the case and is a summary of what an attorney contends the evidence has shown. If any statement or argument of an attorney is not supported by the law or the evidence you should disregard that statement.

IPI 2.01 – Evidence Deposition

            The testimony of Dr. Richard Shin, Mr. Scott Johnson, Mr. Pablo Gonzalez, Joseph Pantone and Ms. Joyce Westfall was presented by the reading of their testimony. You should give their testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witnesses personally appeared and testified in court.

IPI 3.02 Witness Who Has Been Interviewed by Attorney

            An attorney may, if a witness agrees, interview a witness to learn what testimony will be given. Such an interview, by itself, does not reflect adversely on the truth of the testimony of the witness.

IPI 3.03 Liability Insurance/Collateral Source

            If you find for the Plaintiff, you shall not speculate about or consider any possible sources of benefits the plaintiff may have received or might receive.  After you have returned you verdict, the court will make whatever adjustments are necessary in this regard.       

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

            A fact or a group of facts, may, based on logic and common sense, lead you to a conclusion as to other facts. This is known as circumstantial evidence. A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. For example, if you are in a building and a person enters who is wet and is holding an umbrella, you might conclude that it was raining outside. Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same consideration as any other type of evidence

IPI 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

            You have heard witnesses give opinions about matters requiring knowledge and skill. You should judge this testimony in the same way you judge the testimony from any other witness. The fact that such person has given an opinion does not mean that you are required to accept it. Give the testimony whatever weight you think it deserves, considering the reasons given for the opinion, the witness’ qualifications, and all of the other evidence in the case.

IPI 12.04 Concurrent Negligence Other Than Defendant’s

            More than one person may be to blame for causing an injury. If you decide that the defendant was at fault, and that its fault  was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that some third person or entity who is not a party to the suit may also have been to blame.

            However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff was the conduct of some person or entity other than the defendant, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 21.01 – BURDEN OF PROOF

            When I say that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or use the expression “if you find,” or “if you decide,” I mean you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which that party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.

IPI 30.01 et seq Damage Instructions, Measure of Damages

            If you decide for the Plaintiff  on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate him for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from any fault, taking into consideration the nature, extent, and duration of the injury. 

  • The disfigurement resulting from the injury.
  • The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services received
  • The value of loss of past earnings and loss of earnings reasonably certain to be lost in the future.
  •  Pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries.
  • Loss of a normal life experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future.

IPI 30.04.02

When I use the expression “loss of normal life”, I mean the temporary or permanent diminished ability to enjoy life. This includes a person’s inability to pursue the pleasurable aspects of life.

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

IPI 34.01/04 Damages Arising in the Future—Extent and Amount

            If you find that the Plaintiff  is entitled to damages arising in the future because of injuries, you must determine the amount of these damages which will arise in the future.

            If these damages are permanent in nature, then in computing these damages you may consider how long the plaintiff is likely to live.

            According to a table of mortality in evidence, the life expectancy of a person aged 54 years is

28 years. This figure is not conclusive. It is the average life expectancy of persons who have reached the age of 54. It may be considered by you in connection with other evidence relating to the probable life expectancy of the plaintiff in this case, including evidence of his occupation, health, habits, and other activities, bearing in mind that some persons live longer and some persons less than the average.

IPI 36.01 No Liability – No Damages, Absence of Liability – No Occasion to Consider Damages

            If you decide for the Defendant on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages.

IPI 50.11 A Corporation Acts Through Its Employees

The Parties in this case are:

          Plaintiff:           JESUS CEJA

       Defendants:   STORK FABRICATORS, INC  (“Stork”)

The Defendant is a corporation and can act only through its officers and employees. Any act or omission of an officer or employee within the scope of his or her employment is the action or omission of the Defendant.

IPI 400.01/400.01.01 modified ISSUES                                                                               1 of 2

Plaintiff claims that he was injured as a result of the use of a shrink wrap machine manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff claims that there existed in the shrink wrap machine at the time it left the control of Defendant, a condition which made the shrink wrap machine unreasonably dangerous either because of a Specific Defect or a Non-specific Defect, or both. 

As to his claim, there are two counts in the complaint.

Count I alleges Specific Product Defect(s).

Count II alleges a Nonspecific Product Defect.

In the Claim under Count I about  Specific Product Defect(s),  the Plaintiff alleges that the shrink wrap machine was unreasonably dangerous in one or more of the following respects:

  1. The safety controls failed;
  2. The machine lacked sufficient guarding at the point of operation;
  3. The wires for the proximity safety switches were prone to breaking, and the design of the machine failed to incorporate a device to adequately protect these wires from fraying or breaking;
  4. The safety switches were prone to misalignment or becoming out of adjustment;
  5. The machine was designed without an adequate redundant safety system; or
  6. The manual supplied with the machine failed to contain adequate instructions and warnings concerning its use.

The Plaintiff further claims that one or more of these Specific Defects under Count I was a proximate cause of his injuries.

      The Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s allegations of Specific Defects under Count I of his complaint, denies that the shrink wrap machine was in an unreasonably dangerous condition when it left its control, denies that the product failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its intended function, and denies that any unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

* * * *

In the claim under Count II about a Nonspecific Product Defect, the  Plaintiff  alleges that he was injured as a result of the use of the shrink wrap machine and that there existed in the product at the time if left the control of the Defendant a condition which made it unreasonably dangerous because:

  1. The machine failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function because when the blade suddenly and unexpectedly descended upon Plaintiff’s left hand, it did not immediately return to the up position but remained clamped upon Plaintiff’s hand;
  2. The Plaintiff was using the machine in a normal manner, and

2 of 2

  1. There was no other reasonable cause of the machine’s failure to perform.

       The Plaintiff further claims that the Nonspecific Defect under Count II was a proximate cause of his injuries.

      The Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s allegations of a Nonspecific Product Defect under Count II of his complaint, denies that the shrink wrap machine was in an unreasonably dangerous condition at the time it left the Defendant’s control, denies that the shrink wrap machine failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function, and denies that the Plaintiff  was using the machine in a normal manner or that there was no other reasonable cause of the product’s failure to perform.

* * * *

      As to Counts I and II, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury in one or more of the following respects:

  1. That the Plaintiff knew that it could be dangerous to put his hand under the cross seal  blade without removing all power and air to do so;
  1. That the plaintiff knew that the shrink wrap machine had previously cycled unintentionally; or
  1. That the plaintiff intentionally placed his hand under the cross seal blade to clear a jam without removing all power and releasing the air from the machine

The Defendant also claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s own injury.

Plaintiff denies that he assumed the risk of injury and also denies that any assumption of risk on his part was a proximate cause of his injuries.

Finally, as to Counts I and II, the Defendant further denies that Plaintiff was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

I.P.I. 400.02/400.02.01 BURDENS/modified                                                                      1 of 2

Jesus Ceja has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First Proposition:      In the First Proposition  the Plaintiff must prove that the shrink wrap machine was unreasonably dangerous under either of the two counts alleged in this complaint,  Count I (specific defect) and Count II (non-specific defect). However, the Plaintiff  does not need to prove both Counts, but only one of the Counts.

Under Count I of the First Proposition,  the plaintiff must show that the shrink wrap machine had one or more of the following Specific Defects:

  1. The safety controls failed;
  1. The machine lacked sufficient guarding at the point of operation;
  1. The wires for the proximity safety switches were prone to breaking, and the design of the machine failed to incorporate a device to protect these wires from fraying/breaking;
  1. The safety switches were prone to misalignment or becoming out of adjustment;
  1. The machine was designed without an adequate redundant safety system; or
  1. The machine and the manual supplied with it failed to contain adequate instructions and warnings concerning its use.

Under Count II of the First Proposition, the Plaintiff must show that the shrink wrap machine had a Nonspecific Defect because all of the following factors existed:

  1. The machine failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be

       expected in light of its nature and intended function because when the

       blade suddenly and unexpectedly descended upon Plaintiff’s left hand,

       it did not immediately return to the up position but remained clamped

       upon Plaintiff’s hand;

  1. The Plaintiff was using the machine in a normal manner, and
  1. There was no other reasonable cause of the machine’s failure to

                                perform.

Second Proposition: That the defective condition existed at the time the shrink wrap machine left the

 control of Defendant.

Third Proposition:   That  Plaintiff was injured; and

2 of 2

Fourth Proposition: That the unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine was a proximate cause

of Plaintiff’s injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that that any one of these four propositions has not been proved by the evidence, then your verdict should be for the Defendant.

But if, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these four propositions has been proved, then you must consider the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff  assumed the risk of injury.

As to that claim, Defendant has the burden of proving each of the three following propositions:

First Proposition: That the Plaintiff  had actual knowledge of the condition which the  claims

made the product unreasonably dangerous;  

Second Proposition: That the Plaintiff  understood and appreciated the risk of injury from that

condition and proceeded to use the product; and

Third Proposition: That the condition known to the Plaintiff was a proximate cause of the

Plaintiff’s claimed injury.

However, the Plaintiff’s inattentive or ignorant failure to discover or guard against the

unreasonably dangerous condition of the product does not constitute assumption of the risk.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant has not proved all of the propositions required of the Defendant, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s damages will not be reduced.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant has proved all of the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by the percentage of the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Defendant has proved all of the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the Defendant.

If you find that the plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by an unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and if you also find that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury, you will determine the plaintiff’s proportion or percentage of the total fault by comparing the extent to which the plaintiff’s assumption of the risk and the unreasonably dangerous  condition of the Text Wrap Machine  each proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. If you determine the plaintiff’s percentage of the total fault was 50% or less, you will write that percentage on the appropriate line on your verdict form.

IPI B400.03 Strict Product Liability—Personal Injury—Assumption of Risk—Reduction of Damages

If you find that the Plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by an unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine and if you also find that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury, and if you further find that the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, you must then determine the amount of damages to be awarded by you under Count I as follows:

First, determine the total amount of damages to which the Plaintiff  would be entitled under the court’s instructions if the Plaintiff  had not assumed the risk;

Second, determine what portion or percentage is attributable solely to the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk, considering the extent to which the Plaintiff’s assumption of risk and the conduct of Stork and the unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine each proximately contributed to the Plaintiff’s injury;

Third, reduce the total amount of the Plaintiff’s damages by the proportion or percentage of Plaintiff’s assumption of the risk.

The resulting amount, after making such reduction, will be the amount of your verdict.

IPI 400.04 Strict Product Liability—Proximate Cause—Definition

            When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean a cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injury complained of. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the injury.

IPI 400.06 Strict Product Liability—Definition of “Unreasonably Dangerous”—Personal Injury

When I use the expression “unreasonably dangerous” in these instructions,  I mean unsafe when  put to a use that is reasonably foreseeable considering the nature and function of the shrink wrap machine.

IPI  400.07C – Nondelegable duty

The Defendant has the duty to manufacture and sell a product that is not in an unreasonably dangerous condition. That duty cannot be delegated to another. It is not a defense for the Defendant that another person or entity failed to make the product free from unreasonably dangerous conditions. When I use the phrase “cannot be delegated,” I mean that the duty must be performed by Defendant Stork and cannot be left to some other person or entity.

400.07D Strict Product Liability—Duty to Warn—General

The manufacturer has a duty to adequately warn and instruct the user about the dangers of its product of which it knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known, at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control.

10.02 Ordinary Care—Adult—Definition

When I use the words “ordinary care,” I mean the care a reasonably careful person would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The law does not say how a reasonably careful person would act under those circumstances. That is for you to decide.

IPI 400.10 Strict Product Liability—Due Care Not a Defense—Personal Injury—One  and One Defendant/ Modified

If you decide that Plaintiff has proved all the propositions of his case under either Count I or Count II, then it is not a defense that the condition of the product (other than a claim based upon warnings or instructions in the manual) could not have been discovered by the Defendant or that care was used in the manufacture of the product.

IPI B45.03/B400.03/400.02.01 combined/modified:  Instruction on Use of Verdict Forms; Strict Product Liability—Personal Injury—Assumption of Risk—Reduction of Damages

When you retire to the jury room you will first select a foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations.

Your verdict must be unanimous.

Verdict Forms is supplied with these instructions. After you have reached your verdict, fill in and sign the appropriate form of verdict and return it to the court. Your verdict must be signed by each of you. You should not write or mark upon this or any of the other instructions given to you by the court.

The Plaintiff in this case is:                          JESUS CEJA

The Defendants in this case are:      STORK FABRICATORS, INC  (“Stork”)

If you find for the plaintiff and against the defendant, and if you further find that the plaintiff did not assume the risk, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for the plaintiff and against the defendant, and if you further find that that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a combination of an unreasonably dangerous condition of the defendant’s machine and the plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk, and that that plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form B as follows:

First, determine the total amount of damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled under the court’s instructions if the plaintiff had not assumed the risk;

Second, determine what portion or percentage is attributable solely to the plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk, considering the extent to which the plaintiff’s assumption of risk and the unreasonably dangerous condition of the machine each proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury;

Third, reduce the total amount of the plaintiff’s damages by the proportion or percentage of plaintiff’s assumption of the risk.

The resulting amount, after making such reduction, will be the amount of your verdict.

If you find for Defendant and against the Plaintiff, or if you find that Plaintiff’s  fault in

assuming the risk was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form C.

A “Special Interrogatory” is supplied with these instructions. After you have reached a verdict, fill in and sign the Special Interrogatory and return it to the court along with the forms of verdict. The Special Interrogatory must be signed by each of you.

VERDICT FORM A

       We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, Jesus Ceja, and against the Defendant Stork Fabricators Inc. We

assess the total damages in the sum of $________________________________,  itemized as follows:

            Disfigurement from injury                              $__________________________

The reasonable expense of past medical

            and medically related expenses:                     $__________________________

The value of loss of past and future earnings: $__________________________

       The pain and suffering experienced and

       reasonably certain to be experienced in the

            future as a result of the injuries:                      $__________________________     

Loss of normal life experienced and reasonably

certain to be experienced in the future           $__________________________     

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————–        —————————————————-

—————————————————–    —————————————————-

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

VERDICT FORM B

       We, the jury, find for Plaintiff, Jesus Ceja, and against the Defendant Stork Fabricators Inc. We

assess the total damages in the sum of $________________________________,  itemized as follows:

            Disfigurement from injury                              $__________________________

The reasonable expense of past medical

            and medically related expenses:                     $__________________________

The value of loss of past and future earnings: $__________________________

       The pain and suffering experienced and

       reasonably certain to be experienced in the

            future as a result of the injuries:                      $__________________________     

Loss of normal life experienced and reasonably

certain to be experienced in the future           $__________________________     

     We further find the following:

  1. The total amount of damages listed above suffered by

Plaintiff as a proximate result of the occurrence is                   $_________________________

  1. The percentage of the Plaintiff’s fault in assuming the risk

which, in combination with the dangerous condition of the

machine, proximately contributed to Plaintiff’s injury is                    ____________(%)percent

  1. After reducing the total amount of the Plaintiff’s damages by

the proportion or percentage of Plaintiff’s assumption of risk,

we assess the Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in the sum of     $_________________________.

                                                                                                                  ======================

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————–        —————————————————-

—————————————————–    —————————————————-

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

VERDICT FORM C

We, the jury, find for the Defendant, Stork Fabricators, Inc., and against the Plaintiff, Jesus Ceja.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————–        —————————————————-

—————————————————–    —————————————————-

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

—————————————————–     —————————————————

NON IPI –  SPECIAL INTERROGATORY

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 

Was the sole proximate cause of Jesus Ceja’s injuries the conduct of persons or entities other than the Defendant?

                                    YES __________                   NO ____________

[Signature Lines]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–