Jurisdiction: Worcester Superior Court, Worcester, MA
This matter involved a gas powered wood splitter. We represented the defendant, a rental center. The allegations against the rental center were that it failed to provide the operational manual and written warnings along with the product. The maker of the product was also a defendant. Our defense was that the information that we did not provide with the rental had no bearing upon the accident, and therefore the plaintiff’s misuse of the product in placing his hands between the log to be split and the wedge was of no consequence as to the rental company.
It was demonstrated by way of a jury view that the push rod moved very slowly and that warnings language that was printed at several locations on the wood splitter was the identical language to what would have been provided. The plaintiff conceded that he saw the language on the wood splitter. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, directed verdict was awarded to our client. The case continued against the co-defendant manufacturer. A defense verdict was achieved.
This case involved the amputation of several fingers of a middle-aged father who was approximately in his late 40s at the time of the accident. This case had potential verdict value well in excess of $1,000,000.00.
