- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Burn and Scald Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- Missouri City Personal Injuries
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Clear Lake Personal Injury Lawyer
- Deer Park Personal Injury Attorney
- Galveston Personal Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney
- Sugar Land Personal Injury Lawyer
- Texas City Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Deer Park Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Galveston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Pasadena Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Sugar Land Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Trucking Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Houston Fatal Truck Accident Attorney
- Galveston Truck Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Sugar Land Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Conroe Truck Accident Lawyer
- Galveston 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Pasadena Truck Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Clear Lake Truck Accident Lawyer
- Deer Park Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Accident Lawsuits
- Texas City 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Auto Accident Attorney
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Clear Lake Car Accident Lawyer
- Galveston Car Accident Lawyer
- Houston Accident Attorney
- Houston Accident Injury Lawyer
- Houston Car Accident Lawyer
- Pasadena Car Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land Car Accident Lawyer
- Texas City Car Accident Lawyer
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- Houston Drunk Driver Accident Lawyer
- Dram Shop and Liquor Liability Cases in Houston
- Fatal Drunk Driving Accidents
- Galveston Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas Drunk Driver Accident Statistics
- Conroe Drunken Driver Accidents
- Pasadena Drunk Driving Accidents
- Sugar Land Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas City Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Attorney
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Pasadena Work Injury Lawyer
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- Houston Lifting Injury
- More...
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Galveston Work Injury Lawyer
- Sugar Land Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- Houston Trench Collapse Attorney
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Contact Us
Houston Machinery Injury Attorneys
Have you been injured by a piece of machinery while at work?

A “machinery injury” refers to a work related injury which an employee suffers on the job as the result of contact with a mechanical device.
In addition to the obvious reasons, usually the injuries caused by machinery are particularly devastating because the victim is usually exposed to the injury inducing components for an extended period of time. Rather than an instantaneous impact, such as the kind you would experience in a car accident, the machine usually does not turn off on its own, and as such, hands, arms, and other limbs can be “drawn” into the machine leaving the employee to suffer until the machinery can be powered down.
The Alarming Trend of Employer Negligence and Machinery Accidents
Many of the more recent work injury cases coming out of Houston have involved machinery-related injuries whereby the employer removed safety covers or safety guards from the machinery making it possible for an employee to put his hands or other extremities in places that the manufacturer of the machine did not intend for hands to go.
This safety equipment is most often removed by the employer in order to speed up production even if it greatly increases the risk of one of its employees getting hurt. The safety guards are put in place by the manufacturer of the machine because one of its engineers felt it was necessary for the protection of the people who operate the machine. So for an employer, who usually has no engineering expertise, to summarily remove any safety cover or guard is certainly negligent if not grossly negligent.
Lack of Training

Another tremendous factor in a machinery accident is whether or not the employee using the machinery has been properly trained. In most of the machinery related accidents our firm has handled, we have found that employee training was severely lacking. This creates a scenario where the employee is put in a situation that they may not realize is dangerous. One of our most recent such cases involved a young man whose hand became caught in a meat skinning machine. As it turned out, the employee was simply operating the machine in the exact manner he had been been taught by his supervisor. The problem was that the supervisor was not properly trained and had shown him an incredibly dangerous way to perform his duties. Most employees that become injured by machinery are made to feel as if it is there fault. Sadly, many of these injured workers never seek out the legal help they need.
Defective Machinery
In some instances of machinery-related injuries, the manufacturer of the machine contributes to the injury. While most manufacturers of factory and processing machinery build in all of the required safety features, they don't always hit the mark in terms of engineering. It is not uncommon for a piece of machinery to severely injure an employee simply due to a malfunction or defect resulting from poor design. In other words, the manufacturer may create a machine that has a guard keeping the employee's hands from getting caught in a belt, but that doesn't mean that the belt won't snap under tension and take out the employee's eye.
Additionally, the machinery may become defective due to improper maintenance. Failure to follow the manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures is a recipe for disaster. In some instances, this maintenance is conducted by the company using the machine, and in some instances, a third party company is used to maintain the device.

It is absolutely imperative that as soon as an accident that involves a piece of defective machinery occurs, the victim must get legal representation in order to have the authority to preserve the evidence by filing for a subpoena to pull the machinery aside for an investigation.
Some Common types of machinery that cause severe injuries all manner of conveyor belts, power tools, CNC machines, lathes, drill presses, sorters, canning machines, presses, brakes, compactors, cutting and tearing devices, etc.
Naturally, when pursuing any type of injury case related to machinery in use on the job, the issue of whether or not the employer has workers' compensation coverage must be determined first. Please see our other pages on “workers compensation” and “non subscriber cases” for more detail with regard to the importance of making that determination.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
$3,784.00
$1,010,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Hand Lacerations)
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
Total Recovery:
$1,010,000.00
$1,010,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,300.00
$333,300.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential








