Question

1. Summarize the case

At an employer's automotive component manufacturing facility, manufacturing operations make extensive use of robots located within fenced cages. At one location, suspension parts are transferred by rotating tables from station to station while greasing and other operations are performed on the parts by robots. If necessary, employees can gain access to the robots by entering the cages through electrically interlocked gates. When the gates are opened, the multiple energy sources that power the robots, rotating tables, and related machinery are turned off but are not deenergized or locked out. An employee who is inside a cage when a robot is activated could be struck by the robot arm or other machine parts and seriously injured.

An injury occurred when an employee, consistent with the employer's practices, entered the robot cage without deenergizing or locking out any equipment. The employee was attempting to unjam a robot arm. In freeing the arm, the employee tripped an electric eye, causing the robot arm to cycle. The employee's arm was struck by the robot and injected with grease. The employer contends that lockout procedures were not necessary because once the gate is opened, movement of the robot arm is impossible, and a maintenance worker inside the cage would have ample warning – by the closing of the interlocked gate – before the machinery started up, to avoid injury. According to the employer, once the interlocked gate is opened, it must first be closed and a number of buttons must be pushed before any machine movement can occur. The startup procedure would take some time and the person inside the robot area would be aware of the closing of the gate and the presence of another worker at the nearby control panel.

Answer 1

Summary of Case presented point wise:

• Robots are widely used by automobile manufacturers. These robotic arm and robots are maintained by employees. The Robotic arms are secured by cages with electrically interlocked gates.
• To maintain the robots and robotic arms workers are required access them; maintenance workers unlock the cages to enter.
• The unlocking procedure needs shutting power sources and robotic system will freeze till re-activated by a standard operating procedure involving switching on the electrical switches.
• However as per accepted practice a workers can access the robot cages even when they are not deenergized or inter-locked. This situation is dangerous and a worker could get injured if robot arm gets activated when not deenergized.
• A serious injury occurred to an employee while on maintenance job to grease the robot arm without deenergized robotic system.
• The employee got seriously injured and claimed for compensation on grounds that system malfunctioned. He contended that system is designed in such a way that workers get enough time and warning to take steps to secure themselves, moreover a robot should not move while on maintenance.
• But company is claiming that the injury is due to maintenance employee’s negligence. The maintenance is to be undertaken in presence of a coworker and robot cannot operate unless a standard operating procedure is followed.