Perillo v Standard Equipment Co.
Jan 01, 2001OUTCOME: Very favorable settlement for my client
My client was a young lady who was employed as a bank teller. During the course of her work, her hair became entangled in a coin rolling machine, which tore out a significant portion of her scalp. ... Because she was a bank employee, she couldn't sue the bank. Upon investigation, I determined that the machine had been manufactured in the mid 1920's, and the company was still in business. The issue was not whether the machine was up to safety standards at the time of the injury (in the early 2000s), but whether it met safety standards at the time it was made - in 1926. I tracked down a historical engineer, who was able to testify, based upon voluminous research, that the safety standards in effect for coin rolling machines in the 1920s required the installation of a hair guard. Accordingly, the machine was defective even when it was made in 1926, and the manufacturer was liable for my client's injuries. The manufacturer never put in a defense. After hearing my expert, the defendant requested a conference, and offered a substantial settlement. After negotiations, my client received an excellent settlement, with which she was extremely pleased.
