Reuland Electric dismissed from lawsuit filed by man allegedly disfigured in manufacturing molder incident


PHILADELPHIA – A defendant has been dismissed from litigation filed by a man who says he lost two fingers using molder equipment in a manufacturing accident against the companies he claims are responsible for the traumatic injuries.

On July 22, plaintiff James Bonds, through his legal representation at Golkow Hessel, agreed to the dismissal of defendant Reuland Electric, Inc., with prejudice. 

Bonds, of Philadelphia, first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 18, 2017, versus Rocheleau Tool & Die Co., Inc. of Fitchburg, Mass.;, Hydac Technology Corporation of Bethlehem; G&M Electric Co., Inc. of New Orleans; Reuland Electric Inc. of the City of Industry, Calif.; Kass Corp., Inc. of Carrolton, Texas; and Schroeder Brothers Corporation (doing business as “Schroeder Industries”) of Leetsdale.

(Hydac and G&M have also been dismissed as defendants.)

“On Nov. 23, 2015, plaintiff was employed by Suscon Plastics, Inc. at a manufacturing plant. Plaintiff was assigned to work with a Rocheleau Blow Molder with component parts, all or some of which were designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied, and/or sold by defendants herein, which makes plastic bottles,” the suit stated.

“The molder jammed and/or malfunctioned, causing plastic to become jammed in the molds and preventing the molder from functioning properly. Plaintiff attempted to dislodge the plastic from the molds so that the molder would function properly. While attempting to dislodge the plastic from the molds, the Molder unexpectedly cycled, causing the molds to close onto plaintiff’s right hand, directly resulting in severe and permanent injuries.”

When the molder cycled, it caught Bonds’ dominant right hand and caused complete amputation injuries to the second and third fingers, the suit said.

“The molder was defectively designed, manufactured, assembled, installed, distributed, supplied and/or sold, and was unreasonably dangerous, in that it violated the reasonable expectations of plaintiff to perform and operate in an expected and intended manner (failed the consumer expectation test), and created serious risks of harm during use and operation which far outweighed the burden of making the molder safe (failed the risk-utility test),” the suit stated.

“The molder was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it lacked elements necessary for safe use, such as effective and adequate guards, barriers, and/or interlocks, to keep plaintiff’s hands free from pinch points, sufficient warnings and instructions to instruct users such as plaintiff how to properly clear plastic from the molds, and other deficiencies and defects.”

For counts of strict liability, negligence and breach of express and/or implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, delay damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, billable costs, and all other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

The plaintiff is represented by James D. Golkow and Timothy J. Ryan of Golkow Hessel, in Philadelphia.

The defendants are represented by John J. Delany III and Robert DiSandro of Delany McBride in Philadelphia, plus George C. Werner of Barley Snyder, in Lancaster.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 170701681

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at [email protected]

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *