How do I prove that a piece of heavy machinery had a design flaw and was not just “operator error”?

Manufacturers often default to blaming the operator. A proper engineering investigation looks deeper.

In a design defect case, experts examine the machine’s structure, control systems, safety interlocks, guarding, load limits, and stability characteristics. They compare the equipment to industry standards such as ANSI, SAE, ISO, and OSHA requirements. They also evaluate whether a safer alternative design was feasible at the time the machine was built.

We analyze incident history, internal testing data, service bulletins, and prior lawsuits involving the same model. Event data, hydraulic pressure logs, and control module records can show whether the machine failed even when operated within normal parameters. When the equipment creates a foreseeable hazard despite proper use, the issue shifts from operator conduct to defective design.

It can be. Heavy equipment relies on layered safety systems including audible alarms, visual indicators, proximity sensors, cameras, and software alerts. If a backup alarm failed due to poor wiring, inadequate waterproofing, defective circuitry, or flawed system integration, that may constitute a manufacturing or design defect.

We determine whether the alarm was improperly designed, inadequately protected from vibration or dust intrusion, or prone to failure under normal job site conditions. If the manufacturer knew the system was unreliable and failed to redesign or warn users, liability exposure increases significantly.

Yes. Rotating blades, pinch points, and cutting surfaces require effective guarding. If a saw was distributed without required guards, with guards that defeat themselves, or with guards that are easily removed without tools, that raises serious product safety concerns.

Manufacturers have a duty to anticipate foreseeable misuse. If a guard can be removed in seconds and the machine still operates at full power, that design decision may be unreasonable. Liability may extend to the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer depending on how the equipment was supplied.

Hydraulic failures are system failures. A hose can rupture because of defective materials, improper crimping, inadequate pressure rating, abrasion against sharp edges, excessive heat exposure, or improper routing.

The hose manufacturer may be responsible for material or manufacturing defects. The equipment manufacturer may be liable for specifying an under rated hose, routing it too close to heat sources, failing to shield it from abrasion, or designing a system that allows a catastrophic loss of pressure without a safety cutoff.

We evaluate the entire hydraulic circuit, including pressure relief valves, routing geometry, shielding, and maintenance history, to identify all responsible parties.

Yes. A manufacturer’s duty to design reasonably safe equipment and issue effective warnings or recalls does not depend on whether an employer saw a notice.

If the manufacturer was aware of a recurring failure pattern such as brake loss, boom instability, electrical short circuits, or tip over risk, and failed to implement a timely fix or ensure recall compliance, that strengthens a product liability claim. Evidence of prior recall activity often demonstrates that the hazard was foreseeable and preventable.

My husband was killed when a crane collapsed. Can our family pursue a wrongful death claim against the engineering firm?

Possibly. Crane collapses typically involve multiple technical layers: structural design, metallurgy, load calculations, ground stability, assembly procedures, and inspection protocols.

Beyond workers compensation, families may bring wrongful death claims against crane manufacturers, design engineers, rigging companies, inspection contractors, or maintenance providers whose negligence or defective work contributed to the failure.

A forensic structural and metallurgical analysis is often required to determine whether the collapse resulted from design weakness, metal fatigue, improper welding, overload miscalculation, or assembly error.

Amputation cases are evaluated based on medical costs, prosthetic expenses, lost earning capacity, rehabilitation needs, and long term impact on daily function. For skilled tradespeople, the economic losses alone can be substantial.

Non economic damages may include pain, permanent impairment, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. The strength of the liability evidence, including whether the absence of an emergency stop violated industry standards or internal design protocols, significantly affects case value.

Workers compensation typically limits recovery to medical bills and partial wage replacement. It does not compensate for full pain and suffering or diminished quality of life.

If scaffolding failed due to defective welds, inadequate load rating, improper locking mechanisms, or unstable base design, a third party product liability or negligence claim may allow recovery of broader damages, including future medical care, cognitive impairment, and loss of earning capacity.

Electrocution cases require detailed electrical engineering analysis. We examine grounding systems, bonding, circuit protection, insulation integrity, transfer switches, and compliance with the National Electrical Code.

Wrongful death claims may be brought against generator manufacturers, electrical contractors, rental companies, or maintenance providers depending on where the defect occurred. The investigation focuses on whether the generator was improperly wired, defectively manufactured, or supplied without adequate warnings or instructions.

Punitive damages may be available when evidence shows conscious disregard for safety. If internal documents reveal knowledge of tip over risks, rollover hazards, or structural instability and the company chose not to redesign, retrofit, or warn users, courts may allow punitive claims.

Availability depends on state law and the strength of evidence demonstrating intentional or reckless conduct.

My employer wants to fix the machine that injured me tomorrow. How can I stop destruction of evidence?

Equipment must be preserved in its post incident condition. Once repairs are made, critical evidence such as fracture surfaces, wiring faults, hydraulic leaks, or structural cracks may be permanently altered.

An attorney can immediately send preservation notices and, if necessary, seek court intervention to prevent alteration or destructive testing. Acting quickly is essential.

Insurance retained experts focus on minimizing exposure. Independent engineers retained on your behalf focus on identifying failure mechanisms and documenting defects objectively.

In catastrophic equipment cases, independent forensic analysis often includes non destructive testing, metallurgical sampling, control system diagnostics, and digital data retrieval. Independent expertise levels the playing field.

Yes. Industrial equipment cases frequently involve multi state logistics. Attorneys can coordinate inspections across jurisdictions, retain local experts, and address venue and jurisdiction issues. The physical relocation of the machine does not eliminate potential claims.

Key records include maintenance logs, inspection checklists, repair histories, service bulletins, recall documentation, rental agreements, and prior incident reports involving the same serial number.

Patterns such as skipped inspections, overdue repairs, or repeated failures can demonstrate negligent maintenance or unsafe rental practices.

Yes. Many equipment failures are reconstructed through physical evidence and engineering analysis rather than eyewitness testimony.

Fracture patterns, pressure spikes, electrical arc marks, software logs, and structural deformation often tell a detailed story about how and why a failure occurred. Expert testimony can translate that technical evidence into clear conclusions for a jury.

My supervisor never trained me on this specific model of excavator. Is the company liable if the controls malfunctioned?

Failure to train may expose the employer to regulatory liability. However, a control malfunction involving electronic joysticks, hydraulic actuators, or software integration may indicate a product defect independent of training.

Both issues can coexist. A defective control system does not become safe simply because training was inadequate.

An OSHA citation is not automatic proof of liability, but it can support evidence of unsafe conditions, inadequate maintenance, or regulatory non compliance. It may strengthen negligence claims and provide context for how the failure occurred.

Yes. Failure to provide adequate warnings, servicing instructions, or lockout procedures can constitute a marketing defect.

We compare the machine’s labeling and manuals against OSHA standards, ANSI guidance, and industry practice. If foreseeable maintenance hazards were not clearly disclosed, the manufacturer may be liable.

Yes. Rental companies have a duty to supply equipment that is safe and properly documented. The absence of manuals, inspection records, or maintenance history can indicate negligent rental practices and may establish independent liability.

Pre-shift inspections are visual and functional checks. They are not designed to detect internal metallurgical flaws, hidden electrical defects, sealed hydraulic weaknesses, or latent software errors.

If the defect was concealed and not reasonably discoverable through standard inspection, responsibility may lie with the manufacturer, component supplier, or maintenance provider rather than the operator.

Construction and industrial equipment failures are rarely random events. They are usually the result of engineering decisions, material defects, inadequate testing, or ignored warning signs. A thorough technical investigation is often the key to identifying who is truly responsible and securing full compensation for catastrophic harm.