Lathe Chuck Injury Due to Faulty Lathe Operation

One of the more interesting cases that we have been assigned had to do with a personal injury suffered as a result of an airborne chuck.  The injury occurred after an individual purchased a chuck and spindle adapter for use with a Shop Smith lathe that was manufactured back in the late 40s or early 50s (see photos below).

 

P1120708

Chuck and pin wrench used to tighten chuck onto spindle adapter

DSC00204

Antique Shop Smith Lathe

After attaching the spindle and mounting the chuck, the owner started the lathe and tested the operation.  Everything went well until the machine was turned off.  As soon as it was, the spindle shaft stopped but the chuck kept spinning and spun itself off the adapter.  The chuck went airborne, bounced off parts of the lathe and hit the owner’s hand causing severe injury.  The investigation came about as a result of the owner’s allegation of a defective product, ie, the chuck was defectively designed and had no means of stopping if it separated from the spindle adapter.  The chuck is designed to be tightened against the spindle adapter using special wrenches.  According to the owner, he claimed that he “tightened the chuck as tight as he could” before starting the lathe.  During the examination of the lathe, the lathe was started and run without the chuck attached.  When the lathe was turned off, it immediately became clear that there was something wrong when the spindle shaft did NOT coast to a stop.  It was also clear that the abrupt stop provided the torque necessary to cause the chuck to spin off the spindle adapter.  In addition, it was also noted that if the chuck was to stay attached to the spindle adapter, the torque applied during tightening had to be greater than the torque causing separation.  After working the math, it was determined that the owner could not have tightened the chuck was much as he claimed.  As a result, it was further determined that the owner unfortunately caused his own injury by ignoring the problem of abrupt stopping of the spindle shaft.  The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed.

Advertisements

Pumps and Glycol Solutions

Just completed two webinars; one on the use of glycols as heat transfer fluids and the other on retrofitting pumps in HVAC applications.  Both of these topics are related in that pumps are used to circulate fluids, including glycols, to transfer heat.  Typical applications for glycol use include the food and beverage industry, HVAC, and process chemical.  Pumps applications not only include the previously stated industries but also, utility; both electrical and water, petrochemical, and plastics, to name a few.  Insurance carriers that cover businesses in these industries need to be concerned because property damage as well as personal injury can occur when spills and pump failures occur.  Corrosion is a major problem in systems using carbon steel piping as a conduit for the transmission of the gylcol.  If not properly mixed and the correct inhibitors added, the glycol solution can be acidic and cause wear to occur in pipes and fittings resulting in leaks and spills, if not carefully monitored.  Similarly, the internal components of pumps can come under attack and fail as a result of the acidic conditions that could arise if the glycol solution is not properly mixed.  However, during such instances, insurance carriers are also considering the possibility of subrogating against a third party in order to recover their expenditures.  Potential defendants would include the company mixing and/or installing the glycol solution, the designer and installer of the piping system, and the selector and installer of the pump used in circulating the glycol.  It should be noted that the internal components of the pump can be selected based on compatibility of the fluid to be circulated.

Craigslist and Recalled Products

ABC News has reported that Craigslist is allowing users to post ads in an attempt to sell recalled products. It is against the law to knowingly sell recalled items.  Please be careful when purchasing any manufactured item, whether from Craigslist, Ebay, or any other forum where products are offered on an “as is” condition.  Before you buy do a little homework; it might save you a lot of pain in the future.  Get the name of the manufacturer, model and serial numbers.  Go to the manufacturer’s website and check for a recall on the item.  If you can’t find the item, check the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website; www.cpsc.gov to see if they have any recalls for the product.  By law, manufacturers are required to report defects to the CPSC as soon as they learn about a problem.  If you find a recalled product – STAY AWAY FROM IT!  Remember, products are recalled because there is the possibility of personal injury or property damage or both.  In either case, working through a serious injury or property damage can be expensive and time consuming.

Another Flushmate Recall

Back in June of 2012, we blogged about a recall from Flushmate that involved exploding toilet tanks. That recall involved 2.2 million pressure assisted flushing systems where the pressurized tank could fail and cause the porcelain toilet tank to break apart in an explosion-like manner. Since that recall was made, Flushmate has continued to have problems with its products. As a result Flushmate has issued another recall for approximately 351,000 Flushmate III pressure assisted flushing system tanks. The problem is still the same. That is, the tanks fail at the weld seam and release water under whatever supply pressure is available. The pressure is usually enough to break a porcelain toilet tank and cause substantial water damage to property. The destruction of the porcelain tank can also cause serious personal injury.

Is Technology Changing Too Fast?

I just finished reading an article about how in the not to distant future we will have autonomous vehicles. That is to say that cars and trucks will drive themselves. The article, published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, went on to predict that autonomous vehicles would be available by the year 2020, only seven years from now. As a forensic engineer that investigates vehicular accidents, I can’t help but wonder what is going to fail that will cause these vehicles to crash. And something will FAIL. Will it be a software glitch or will some system that is supposed to detect danger miss a cue? History is littered with examples of engineering failures that have caused massive amounts of property damage as well as countless numbers of lives. Imagine traveling at some high speed and smashing into another vehicle because your vehicle, NOT YOU, failed to apply the brakes. The point to be made is that manufacturers, regardless of the industry, are all too eager to be the first to get a new product on the market. When the public starts buying the product, it’s not until then that we find out that the product has problems that have not been eliminated. What products am I talking about? Just think phones, computers, appliances, and yes, cars. I’m sure something will come to mind. Is technology changing too fast? Yes, I think so. As long as manufacturers rush to get their products to market before they are ready, we, the consumers, are going to be paying the price. As a result, I also think that those same manufacturers should be held responsible for property damage and personal injury if their products fail to perform as advertised.

California Gas Line Explosion

Earlier this year, one of the local television stations in the Nashville Tennessee area reported on a gas explosion in a residential neighborhood. (The story can be found on our website at www.rjhill.com – click on WSMV I Team.) In that report, the gas company denied any wrongdoing even though the line was clearly their responsibility. One of the things that came out of that investigation was that the age of the pipe was approximately 20 years old at the time of the explosion. With miles and miles of pipeline, the gas company has the responsibility for making sure that the line is safe and not leaking. Safety is an obvious issue and it is in the gas company’s best interest not to have to pay for property damage and personal injury as a result of an explosion. Now, we are hearing about another gas explosion, this time in San Bruno. It has been reported that the line involved was installed in 1948 and was a 30 inch line that was classified as a high risk. Why then, do gas utility companies, let their gas lines get to the point where public safety is compromised? Surely, they consider human life more important than their pipelines. Is the economics such that the replacement of aging pipelines is more expensive than paying for property damage, personal injury and wrongful death claims? Is keeping the gas company profitable more important than spending money on pipeline improvements? The public needs to know.

%d bloggers like this: