On Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010, at around 6:30 a.m., plaintiff Gerald Ohmer, 51, a sign installer, went to F&B Rentals Inc., a rental yard located at 1602 North Harbor Blvd. in Santa Ana, to rent a Genie TX/34-20 boom lift for use on a sign installation job. While the boom lift was being prepared by F&B personnel, Ohmer placed his hand into a limit switch enclosure on the machine and, thereafter, the employee operated the machine in a downward motion by lowering the boom, crushing Ohmer’s left index finger. Ohmer sued F&B Rentals Inc., alleging that the defendant was liable for the negligence of their employee. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel received negligence per se instructions from the court. F&B subsequently brought a third-party claim against the boom lift’s manufacturer, Genie Industries Inc., seeking equitable indemnity. F&B alleged that Genie was negligent in the design of the boom lift and failed to warn of the unguarded crush hazard. Ohmer claimed that the crush point on the boom lift was located within a gray, covered box and that F&B employees opened the protective cover and left the box unguarded while they operated the lift. He also claimed that F&B employees asked him to put his hand on the switch located in the box, thereby overriding a safety feature on the boom lift. F&B disputed Ohmer’s version of the facts, and its employee claimed that Ohmer volunteered to help him while he was determining why the machine was malfunctioning. F&B contended that the boom lift’s defect was an unguarded, unwarned crush hazard created by a pinch point between the limit switch actuators and the contact plate that activated the switches. It further contended that in order for the operator to carry out the pre-operation machine check list and a function test, the enclosure needed to be accessed by opening the enclosure door, which theoretically served as the guard. Thus, F&B argued that the boom lift’s manufacturer, Genie, knew or should have known about the crush hazard, and that the chance of an injury was foreseeable by machine operators carrying out pre-operation inspections of the machine. In addition, F&B argued that since the guard was not effective, the crush hazard should have been removed through a design change, or a specific warning should have been applied. Genie contended that no such hazard existed to people using the machine properly., Ohmer sustained a crush injury/tuft fracture of his left, dominant index finger. He subsequently drove himself to a hospital and ultimately required surgery to remove foreign objects in the finger on July 18, 2011. Ohmer claimed that he suffered nerve damage and residual sensitivity to the fingertip as a result of scar tissue. He alleged that his residual prevented him from resuming his usual occupation of sign fabricator and installer because of the vibration caused by power tools needed in his work. He also alleged that he would have worked until the age of 67, but that after the accident, he could only carry out office-related job responsibilities for less money. Thus, Ohmer claimed he would lose significant income on account of being unable to resume sign installation work. F&B’s counsel contended that Ohmer would not sustain the extent of lost income alleged, as his earnings history included payments unrelated to the economic value of the installation work he was carrying out for his employer.