Design defect of pipe-grooving power tool claimed. $3.97M. San Francisco County.
Summary
Apprentice is injured on job site, says defective tool was to blame.
The Case
- Case Name: Velasquez v. Ridge Tool Company
- Court and Case Number: San Francisco Superior Court / CGC-19-576647
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, May 02, 2023
- Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, June 12, 2019
- Type of Case: Products Liability
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Suzanne R. Bolanos
-
Plaintiffs: Colby Velasquez, 40
-
Defendants: Ridge Tool Company
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $3,970,893.94
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff: 10%; Defendant: 20%; Plaintiff's employer: 70%.
-
Economic Damages:
Past medical expense: $83,893.94
Past lost earnings/earning capacity: $287,000
Future lost earnings/earning capacity: $2,100,000
-
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $1,000,000
Future: $500,000
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 9 court days (arguments and evidence phase)
- Jury Deliberation Time: 13 hours
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Sisneros Graziani LLP by Brian Graziani, San Francisco.
Law Office of Ted W. Pelletier by Ted Pelletier, San Anselmo.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Hennelly & Grossfeld LLP by Paul Martin, Marina del Rey.
The Experts
-
Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Rudolph Buntic, M.D., hand surgery
-
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Maria Brady, vocational rehabilitation.
Robert Johnson, economics.
Leslie "Chip" Lindley, sprinkler fitting.
Scott Buske, PE, mechanical engineering.
John Etherton, PhD, industrial engineer, occupational safety, human factors.
-
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Erick Knox, PhD, PE, mechanical engineering.
Eric Drabkin, Ph.D., economics.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
Plaintiff lost portions of his index, middle, and ring fingers on his left hand (non-dominant) in a construction site accident while working as an apprentice sprinkler fitter in the construction of the Chase Center arena, in San Francisco. He was injured while using a pipe-grooving power tool designed and manufactured by the defendant.
The plaintiff pursued a case against his employer under the “Power Press Exception” to the “Exclusive Remedy Rule,” which case resolved before trial.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That the guarding mechanism and related warnings were defective in design, and failed to adequately warn. That defendant was negligent in the design of the product.
-
Defendant's Contentions:
That the product was low risk, not defective, and not negligently designed.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $83,893.94
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $287,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $2,100,000
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff §998 Demand: $999,999
- Defendant §998 Offer: Waiver of costs.
Additional Notes
Plaintiff presented three strict liability theories: (1) design defect – risk/benefit, (2) design defect – consumer expectations, (3) strict liability failure to warn) as well as negligence to the jury and prevailed on all four causes of action.