On Dec. 29, 2011, plaintiff Jonathan Appling, 40, was injured while working with a Thunderbird II Closed Circuit Recycle Crusher (Model AM113155/6Z1VR3), in Oakland. The machine was being used to crush large pieces of concrete and rocks. Appling claimed that a fellow employee, who was operating the machine, noticed that the under crusher conveyor belt was tracking to one side and went beneath the crusher to troubleshoot. Appling’s co-worker concluded that the left rubber skirt board (which prevents material from escaping the conveyor) was out of alignment and began to de-energize the machine. Meanwhile, Appling picked up crow bar and began manually pushing the rubber skirt in an attempt to realign it. His jacket became caught in the wings of the unguarded crusher pulley. He managed to free himself but his left pant leg got caught in the pulley and he was dragged into the machine. He sustained a left tibia compound fracture and other . Appling sued machine manufacturer Aggregate Machinery Inc., asserting design defect. Appling’s accident reconstruction expert opined that the operating instructions were very difficult to follow, and there was foreseeable misuse of the product. He opined that that the guard around the tail crusher pulley had to be removed because of poor design, as workers could not see the rubber skirt of the crusher to fix it. He said that there were too many bolts and screws that had to be removed in order to re-align it. Had the machine been properly designed, there would be no need to have removed the safety guard around the tail crusher pulley, and Appling’s clothing would not had gotten ensnared in the pulley Aggregate Machinery denied liability. The company had sold the crusher to another owner, who resold it to Appling’s employer, Urban Recycling Corp., in Oakland. The defense counsel’s accident reconstruction expert opined that machine was properly designed, and included simple instructions that warned workers never to operate the machine without the safety guard. He said that Appling was negligent for continuing to work around the machine while the safety guard was removed. He further opined that Appling’s employer was also negligent., Jonathan Appling was taken by ambulance to Alameda County Medical Center after the accident. He had sustained a left tibia compound fracture for which he had a fixation procedure, with a rod and screws attached. He also sustained a pelvis fracture and herniated lumbar intervertebral discs at L4-5 and L5-S1, and an L5 fracture. He remained in hospital for eight days. Appling claimed residual pain and limitations performing activities of daily living, and that he was unable to return to work. Appling was determined to have a 23 percent whole person impairment of lumbar spine; 5 percent whole person impairment of his pelvis; and 10 percent whole person impairment of left lower leg. He sought to recover damages for past and future medicals; past and future loss of earnings; and past and future pain and suffering. The defense counsel’s expert orthopedic surgeon opined that Appling’s fractures had healed and that he could have returned to work within two years after the accident.