Boylan v. Han-Tek

$5M Settlement

Date of Settlement: Jan. 9.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 151202533.

Judge: Annette Rizzo.

Type of Action: Products liability.

Injuries: Partially amputated arm.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Alan Feldman, Daniel Mann and Edward Goldis, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig, Philadelphia.

Defense Counsel: Richard Stabinski, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby; William Resch, McCormick & Priore; Brian Corcoran, Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich; Patrick Hasson, Styliades, Mezzanotte & Hasson; Cathleen Rebar, Rebar Bernstiel.

Comment:

A worker whose arm was partially amputated by a piece of heavy machinery at a metal fabrication plant has agreed to settle his products liability claims against five companies for $5 million.

Ryan Boylan, who was 37 at the time of his injury, entered into a settlement agreement with the design and manufacturing companies Jan. 9 following mediation before retired Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Annette Rizzo. According to Alan Feldman of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig, who represented the plaintiffs along with attorneys Daniel Mann and Edward Goldis, the defendants did not disclose how much each defendant contributed to the settlement, but the accord included the waiver of a more than $555,000 workers' compensation lien.

Feldman said he felt Boylan had good chances of success at trial, but unsettled questions of law, including whether comparative negligence arguments should be allowed into products liability cases in the wake of the game-changing Tincher v. Omega Flex decision, helped bring all parties to the negotiating table.

According to Boylan's mediation memo, the incident occurred Dec. 23, 2014, while he was working at a Reading Alloys facility in Robesonia, Pennsylvania. The company, which is owned by Ametek, a defendant in the lawsuit, produces master alloys and metal pieces for a variety of industries, Boylan said in his memo.

According to the memo, Boylan worked near the load-end of a conveyor system on the so-called "melt line," where large metal boxes moved back and forth from the load-end to the production line.

The memo said Boylan had dropped a sparkler device into the conveyor system. In an attempt to retrieve it, Boylan reached down into the system, which is when his arm was caught by a moving box. According to the memo, his dominant right arm was partially severed above the elbow, and he was taken to Reading Hospital, screaming in pain. Later that day, Boylan underwent a "guillotine amputation," and had three additional surgeries in the following weeks.

Boylan sued Ametek, which owned the facility; Han-Tek, which designed the melt line system; Wily Machine, which sold component parts on the melt line; Acquajet, which designed and built the component parts; and SSM Group, which designed another component part. Boylan argued that the system had been negligently designed because there had been a four-inch gap in the melt line near the load end, which was left unguarded.

Ametek challenged the suit, arguing that it was Boylan's employer, and therefore immune under the Workers' Compensation Act. The company also noted that it had paid Boylan more than $553,000 in workers' compensation benefits, and was continuing to pay Boylan's medical benefits.

The company filed summary judgment motions on the issue, and, although it lost those motions, it had sought interlocutory appeals at the Superior Court. The latest effort to get interlocutory review by the Superior Court was denied in December.

The companies that designed and manufactured the component parts blamed Han-Tek in their mediation memos, and Han-Tek contended that it had not been contracted to provide additional guarding on the conveyor system.

All the defendants also argued that Boylan was comparatively negligent.

In the wake of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Tincher, questions have remained about whether defendants are able to raise a plaintiff's comparative negligence as a defense.

The fact that the defendants might try to raise those issues was a challenge in the case, according to Feldman.

And another complication in the case, according to Feldman, was that an email from Reading Alloys to Han-Tek said that Reading Alloys agreed to take responsibility for any guarding that was necessary. Feldman noted that longstanding case law in Pennsylvania holds that product designers and manufactures have a nondelegible duty to ensure their products are safe, however, he said, defendants could also try to dispute that longstanding in the wake of Tincher.

Ultimately, Feldman said, plaintiffs were able to make their case through extensive discovery and legal briefing, with Goldis and Mann taking 15 depositions and handling all the motions, Feldman said.

Richard Stabinski of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby represented Aquajet Services. William Resch of McCormick & Priore represented Wily Machine. Brian Corcoran of Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich represented SSM Group. Patrick Hasson of Styliades, Mezzanotte & Hasson represented Han-Tek, and Cathleen Rebar of Rebar Bernstiel represented Ametek. None of the defense attorneys returned a message seeking comment.

—Max Mitchell, of the Law Weekly