At 10:35 a.m. on December 2, 2024, Employee #1 was performing maintenance on a sensor inside a robotic enclosure. As he entered the area, the robot was stopped by entrance sensors. While he was cleaning the sensor, a coworker reset the machine from the control panel, unaware that Employee #1 was still inside the enclosure. The robotic arm activated and struck Employee #1, reportedly lifting and placing him onto a roller platform. He sustained multiple internal and external injuries and was killed as a result of the incident.

At 10:00 p.m. on February 22, 2024, an employee working as a machine operator for a landscape architectural service had been monitoring a production line (Line 1). The employee started his shift at 3:00 p.m. He was operating the conveyer that carries pallets loaded with landscape materials such as bags of mulch, decorative rocks, and soil. The employee works with a robotic arm that picks up landscape materials from the conveyor and places them on a pallet. When the pallet is full, it moves down the conveyer. A coworker who operates a forklift noticed a pallet was crooked and mentioned it to the employee before leaving the area to do his assigned work. After returning to the area, the coworker saw the employee inside the cage with the door closed. The employer stated that the employee must have entered across the conveyer causing the robot to pick the employee up thinking he was a pallet. The employee was caught within the cage under a robotic arm and died from crushing injuries to his chest.

At 2:15 p.m. on November 29, 2022, an employee was lubricating conveyor rollers with WD-40 in an energized robotic cell referred to as the iPal palletizer machine. There were no other similar machines in the facility. The employee was between the robot arm and south side of the conveyor when he unknowingly activated the photo eye located at the roller plane which senses when pallets are ready to be picked up. The motion of moving the can of WD-40 over the conveyor area satisfied the photo eye which then sent the robot arm into motion, striking the employee in the back of the head, neck, and shoulder area pushing him down into the conveyor and piercing his neck, skull, and right hand. The robot arm stopped moving likely because the servos that moved the robot arm limited out due to sensing friction. The employee died due to crushing and piercing injuries.

At 9:15 p.m. on September 1, 2022, an employee was placing welding tips into a welding tip cartridge for a spot welding robot. The spot welding robot was not locked out and activated as the employee placed the tips into the cartridge. The employee's upper torso was crushed, killing him.

At 6:35 p.m. on November 3, 2021, an employee was performing maintenance work on a machine in the automotive engine parts manufacturing facility. As the employee performed maintenance on the tool brush inside the deenergized machine, his upper body was protruding through the part entry door on top of the machine. While working in this position, the energized gantry robot which moves parts to and from the individual machines across the crank shaft line, entered the employee's work zone and struck him. The employee was entangled and caught between the gantry's "grabber hand" and the side of the machine. The employee suffered fatal injuries due to entanglement at the waist level by the gantry and the inside of the machine causing bleeding, contusions, lacerations, and bruises in the upper arms, chest, head and rib cage areas.

At 9:30 a.m. on June 12, 2021, Employee #1 was working on an automated guided vehicle (AGV) when a second AGV approached and struck him in the leg with its forks. The employee sustained a broken leg and was hospitalized for treatment.

At 6:00 a.m. on September 2, 2020, an employee was adjusting a robot used to make molds. The robot activated and struck the employee. The employee was hospitalized to treat fractures to the ribs and back area and a punctured lung.

At 11:00 a.m. on August 28, 2020, an employee was shredding cabbage with a food processing machine (Robot Coupe CL 50). The employee was hand-feeding cabbage into the food processing machine. The employee reached too far into the machine, and the tips of her right index and middle fingers contacted the rotating blade (point of operation) of the machine, causing amputation injuries. The employee was hospitalized.

At 10:04 a.m. on August 16, 2020, an employee was unsticking a pallet and adjusting sensors on an industrial robot. The sensors were activated causing the robot to begin its cycle. The robot grabbed the employee and pulled him to the floor attempting to complete its cycle. The employee's leg was broken and required hospitalization for treatment.

At 4:30 a.m. on January 9, 2020, an employee and Coworker #1 were performing maintenance work drilling out and replacing bolts for an access panel on the pusher table of an auto depalletizing robot (Robot #2) within a robot cell. At the same time, coworker #2 was preparing to test the operational functions of the dunnage robot (Robot #1). Coworker #2 completed maintenance work on Robot #1 while the employee and Coworker #1 remained inside the robot cell. Coworker #2 exited the robot cell to reset the light curtains. The employee and Coworker #1 had entered the robot cell through the light curtains and that neither had isolated the electrical and pneumatic energy sources at the controls on Robot #2 or affixed lockout devices before performing maintenance work. Coworker #2 reset the robot cell perimeter light curtains for Robot #1 and Robot # 2 in preparation for a test run on Robot #1. The Robot #2 pusher table and robot arm turned on after the perimeter light curtains were reset and the run cycle was initiated in automatic mode on the operator control panel. The employee and Coworker #1 were both sitting on the Robot #2 pusher table while repairing damaged bolts on the table, so the pusher arm sensor for the Robot #2 pusher arm detected something on the table that needed to be pushed off. Coworker #1 managed to get off the pusher table without injury, but the employee was unable to move in time. The employee's feet had dropped down into the recessed area where they had removed an access plate from the table. His feet were repeatedly struck by the pusher arm as the robot tried to complete the normal programmed action of clearing materials from the table outgoing conveyors. His coworkers hit the emergency stop buttons on the outside of the robot cell and helped the employ

At 8:30 p.m. on November 14, 2019, an employee was working for a firm that made medical and surgical instruments. She supervised mechanics and repair technicians. She was working in the facility's HA department, where the HA1 and HA2 robotic work cells were located. She was changing out a plasma spray gun from the HA2 robot. The robot was still energized. It had not been locked out. As she was loosening a bolt to detach the plasma spray gun from the robot, the wrench she was using contacted a metal fitting on the spray gun water line. An arc flash ensued. The employee received second-degree burns on two fingers on her left hand and on her right wrist. She was treated without hospitalization. The employee had not been trained on lockout or the use of padlocks. The interlocked access doors to the cell were equipped with a limit switch that did not deenergize the robot or the spray gun. The employee entered the cell two to three times daily. A risk assessment had not been performed. The employer was not enforcing energy control procedures.

At 8:35 p.m. on October 22, 2019, an employee working for a plastics plumbing fixtures manufacturer was receiving parts from a robot press machine. The robot press struck the employee in the head. The employee lacerated his head and sustained a concussion, requiring hospitalization.

At 8:00 a.m. on October 16, 2019, an employee was working on the paint line in Section 1200 and entered into an area that was chained off with LOTO signs to free a jammed pallet. The employee was struck by a fiber concrete board that was rejected by a Guidel Gantry Systems Robot and crushed between it and a stack of other rejected boards, killing him.

At 7:00 p.m. on March 21, 2019, an employee was realigning robot arm and ring on Press #30. The employee's hand was in the machinery when the ejector plate/ring retracted into the press which caught the employee's left hand between the mold and the ring. The employee suffered fingertip amputations to the index and middle fingers on his left-hand. Hospitalization was not required.

At 3:15 p.m. on January 30, 2019, an employee was working at a full-service restaurant. She was operating a Robot Coupe food processor. She was feeding a piece of cabbage into the chute of the food processor. As she was aligning the piece, her finger was caught and sucked into the chute. Her finger came into contact with the blade. The tip of the middle finger on her right hand was amputated. She was hospitalized.

At 11:58 p.m. on December 26, 2018, an employee noticed that a robot had a red light on and went to investigate why. The employee placed his right hand's pinky into a hole and amputated when it was caught in some gears. The employee was hospitalized.

At 12:45 p.m. on June 22, 2018, an employee was troubleshooting and performing maintenance on Robot #50. During work, the employee's right index finger became caught between the drive belt and pulley of the robot. The finger was amputated, which he was hospitalized and received treatment.

At 9:45 p.m. on December 12, 2017, an employee was working for a manufacturer of automobile chassis and body components. He leaned through a light curtain to change or clean a welding tip on a robot. Another robot unexpectedly energized. Its arm struck the employee. He sustained a fracture and dislocation of his left hip. He was hospitalized.

At 7:30 a.m. on September 18, 2017, an employee was touching up a part on a robot welder. The employee was unable to see the work area while standing on a stool. The employee shut the door to welding cage and climbed between the welding table and the robot platform. The employee was observing the welding sequence to make sure the machine was going to weld correctly. When the employee cycled the machine, the machine traveled to the home position at full speed. The employees legs were pinched between the welding table and the robot base. The employee was bruised and sustained lacerated on the back of both legs. The employee required several stiches on back of left leg. Employee was kept in the hospital for possible compartment syndrome.

At approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 23, 2017, an employee entered a robotic cell to make an adjustment to guide rails where half dive shafts were placed by a robot. The robot cycled while the employee was within the danger zone and was pinned between the robot and a conveyor, receiving a puncture wound to chest.

At approximately 7:00 a.m. on June 16, 2017, Employee #1 was watching a maintenance worker repair a sensor on an automatic robotic conveyor system located in Zone Number 2. He was in Zone Number 3 and standing in front of another robotic conveyor system when the robot struck him in his back. The robot caught and pinned him against the conveyor and fractured at least six of his ribs. Employee #1 was transported to a medical center, where he underwent treatment on the rib fractures and was then hospitalized.

At 7:45 a.m. on June 15, 2017, an employee was replacing a spring activated arm on a robot. When the employee removed the equipment's balancer, the robot's arm swung upward and struck the employee in the head. The employee lost consciousness and sustained a head contusion, which he was hospitalized and received treatment.

At 5:20 p.m. on February 16, 2017, an employee was assisting a coworker with the robot. The employee cut a piece of metal and was going to grind the edges to smooth the edge when his glove was caught and pulled his right hand/thumb into the vertical grinding wheel. The coworker disconnected the power. The employee suffered a severe laceration to his right thumb which later resulted in an amputation of the right thumb pad and nail.

At 7:20 p.m. on January 25, 2017, an employee was located inside a plastic injection molding press to adjust a gripper on the Fanuc Robot. While exiting the press, the employee slipped on a grated surface that was oily. He struck his right elbow on the grating and sustained a severe laceration. The employee was hospitalized and treated for his injury.

At approximately 10:23 a.m. on June 19, 2016, an employee was waiting for a sensor fault on A900 robotic cell to be cleared.The employee entered the robotic cell, seven robots present, and attempted to clear a sensor fault on the machine. The robot became activated and caught the employee from behind crushing her ribs and shoving the employee to a jig. The employee was killed.

At approximately 2:15 p.m. on July 7, 2015, Employee #1 was working near a robot. The robot was located within an enclosure. Employee #1 was working on a fixture and attempting to place a part into it. As he worked, the robot struck Employee #1, pinning and killing him.

At approximately 12:50 a.m. on June 16, 2013, Employee #1 was working in a maintenance crew replacing a gear reducer and gaskets on an articulating robot. Employee #1 walked under the axis arm of the robot at the same time the arm, along with axes and welding tooling, mounted at the end of axis arm. The arm pivoted around the axis and collapsed into another axis arm, perpendicular to the floor. Employee #1 was caught between the tooling axis arms and the robot. Employee #1 was taken to the hospital with multiple blunt force injuries, where he later died.

On December 15, 2012, Employee #1, a 38-year-old male with Sodecia Sterling Heights was inside a robot work cell with the interlocked gates closed. Employee #1 was struck from behind by a transfer robot, crushing his chest and neck. Employee #1 was killed in the event. Employee #1 had lock attached to his belt loop.

On December 27, 2010, an employee of the restaurant El Pollo Loco was working in its food preparation area to make a salsa. He was using a Robot Coupe, bowl cutter mixer to cut cilantro. During the cutting process, the lid was not attached. When he loaded the vegetables to the blender, both his hands were caught by the blade. The tip of the middle finger on his right hand was amputated. Emergency medical technicians were called, and he was transported to a hospital.

At approximately 1:30 p.m. on August 11, 2009, Employee #1, a 42-year-old worker employed by a vehicle parts manufacturer, was loading automobile radiators onto a fixture that was bolted to a moving table. The table, which was attached to a carousel, rotated 180 degrees, and a computerized robot spot welded the front and back of the radiators. If for any reason the machine needed to be shut down (e.g., for maintenance procedures), the person performing the maintenance was required to reset a computer pendant that hung from one side of the barrier guard. This was done by pushing station button Number 1 or Number 2, depending on which station the robot was stopped. In this instance, the maintenance person did not push or set the right button, and as a result, the table moved while Employee #1 was loading a radiator. Employee #1 was temporarily trapped between the table and the barrier guard that housed a robotic welder. She received deep bruises on her chest and back, and she was hospitalized.

On July 24, 2006, Employee #1 was operating at a robotic work station. He was killed when he was crushed between a robotic arm and frame of one of the robot's work stations, referred to as the "degator." Employee #1 was found with his head pinned between the robotic arm and the degator. His arm appeared to be either reaching to remove scrap that had been dropped by the robot, or reaching to activate a "reset" button on the control panel. There was no memory in the robot computer, and testing of the robot showed no malfunction in robot movement. This robotic process produced medium caliber ammunition, and the points of operation are enclosed escept for the area where Employee #1 was killed.

On March 22, 2006, Employee #1 was operating a left-hand Sill Welder. A robot, used by the company, caught her on the back of her neck, pinning her head between it and the part that was being welded. Employee #1 was transported to Northcrest Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead.

On November 16, 2004, Employee #1 was assisting an electrical engineer in troubleshooting a malfunctioning robot. He was crushed between the lifting arm and the lower frame of the robot when the lifting arm dropped. Employee #1 fractured his chest and was hospitalized.

On March 30, 2004, an employee was working for Gentrag Corporation that manufactured motor vehicle transmission and power train parts. Some of the tasks at this work site were automated and were handled by industrial robots. An industrial robot moved assembled product from a conveyer to one of two machines for testing. The robot then unloaded the product and placed the product onto another conveyer for movement to the next processing step. The robot and the two testing machines were separated from employees and the rest of the plant by solid walls on three sides and a chain link fence on one side creating a robot work cell. Interlocked gates were present in the fence and one wall. On March 30, 2004, the employee entered the barricaded work cell while the system was in operation. The employee was caught by the head or neck between the fixture on the end of the robotic arm and the testing machine and was killed. The gates into the work cell were found to be closed following the accident. The employee may have gained entry by climbing over the fence or crawling through openings in the fence where product was moved by conveyer out of the work cell.

At around 11:55 p.m. on July 28, 2003, Employee #1, a maintenance worker with Lifetime Products, was found crushed under a pneumatic lift table which was under approximately 3500 PSI hydraulic pressure. The accident occurred in the robot cage, which is surrounded by a chain-link fence and a gate which was interlocked to shut down the robot while it was open. The robot was not running when the compliance officer arrived. In addition to the robot, the cage is surrounded a pneumatic lift table which is used to raise or lower stacks of products coming off the assembly line. The products, which were in cardboard boxes, were placed on the lift table by the robot. Once on the lift table, the products would be raised or lowered the correct location for a cardboard sleeve to be stapled to them. Evidence indicated that Employee #1 was working on the staplers. A box of staples and a set of Allen wrenches were located next to the lift table and staplers. One of the Allen wrenches was removed from the set and was laying on the floor next to where Employee #1 was found. This Allen wrench fit the adjustment screws on the staplers. A coworker stated that he heard the staple guns firing ten-round bursts within a few minutes of when the accident occurred, indicating that someone was working on the staplers. It was not determined during the inspection how the lift table was activated while Employee #1 was underneath it, but it apparently trapped him while he was attempting to exit the pit underneath the table. The medical examiners report indicates that Employee #1 died as a result of compressional asphyxia. A subsequent investigation was conducted by Lifetime Products. This investigation, dated August 4, 2003, indicated that the lift table may have been activated by the stapler linear sl

On August 18, 2002, Employee #1, a process technician, was setting up a mold change in a plastic injection molding machine. The product required two strokes of the platen. The first stroke would make the part, after which the robot arm would pick up and move the part to a different place on the mold face, whereupon the second stroke would complete the product. Employee #1 was in the danger zone between the mold halves while dialing in the final placement of the robotic arm. When he completed the set-up, he followed normal procedure and sent the robot arm out of the mold to the home position. The machine sensed that the robotic arm had cleared the mold area, and it cycled, crushing and killing Employee #1. The machine had been inadvertently left in auto mode during this final touch-up procedure, and the safety controls had been bypassed.

On May 7, 2002, Employee #1 was working in the refrigerator assembly line area when a piece of shipping cardboard became jammed in the transfer robot. He entered the caged area near the conveyor to clear the jam. At the same time, a coworker at the controls put the machine in manual mode and tried to release the robot arms. When the coworker did this, Employee #1's left leg became pinned between the pusher and the conveyor, and it remained caught for several minutes before coworkers were able to free him. Employee #1 suffered severe bruising to his leg but did not require hospitalization.

On January 15, 2002, Employee #1, a maintenance technician for Xilinx Corporation, was performing normal maintenance on a Seiko Epson Handler scanner. He removed a side door to improve access and finished with the adjustments. While test running the machine from in front and watching the operation, he inadvertently reached up and rested his hand on the frame of the unit. His fingers slipped into the opening, and the robot carriage head moved toward the front. The outside edge of the head became caught and pinned his right index finger between itself and the frame, amputating the finger between the first and second knuckle. The hazard was not recognizable.

On December 29, 2001, Employee #1 was cleaning up at the end of his shift and entered a robot cell that was not locked out. When the robot machinery started up, it grabbed his neck and pinned Employee #1 under a wheel rim, asphyxiating him.

Employee #1, a maintenance worker, was called to a robotic cell because a pin was sticking. Instead of following proper procedures and opening the gate, which would have shut down the unit, for some reason he climbed over the 6 ft high fence and tried to repair the unit while the robot was operating. Employee #1 became caught in the machine and was killed. He had received about five or six weeks of training and had worked on robots since March of 1999. Entering the cell in this manner was forbidden by company regulations.

Employee #1, a default chaser at the boxed meat storage facility of a meatpacking plant, was observing a coworker do maintenance on the Lovejoy coupler of an outbound conveyor. This meat storage and distribution system was largely automated and computer controlled. A series of conveyors moved the boxed meat to carousels for storage. Robots picked the boxes off the inbound conveyors and placed them on carousels. They also took the boxes out of storage to be shipped as needed. As the coworker performed his duties, Employee #1 asked him what he was doing. The coworker looked up and then heard the robot activate as Employee #1 stepped up on the end of the inbound conveyor. The robot came down to the level of the inbound conveyor and caught Employee #1 against it. He was struck on the back of the head and became trapped with his body in a position folded forward. Coworkers tried unsuccessfully to manually remove the robot, and eventually were able to move it using the main controls. Once released, Employee #1 fell approximately 15 ft to the floor. He died of severe blunt force trauma to the back of his head, and was most likely dead before he fell.

Employee #1 was crushed when he became trapped between the lift arm clamp brackets of a palletizer robot. He died of mechanical asphyxia.

Employee #1 was operating a Robot Coupe CL-50 vegetable slicing machine when his right little finger struck against the blade and was amputated. The blade cover guard was either broken or missing.

An employee was using a temporary electric cord to power a robotic control unit for a test. The cord, which had been temporarily connected to the robot unit with stripped conductors on one end, was plugged into a 480-volt receptacle. The exposed conductor ends were dangling in front of the robot box. The employee contacted the exposed conductors and the box and was electrocuted.

On December 12, 1997, Employee #1 was using a Raymond dual-drive, stand-up, counterbalanced forklift to transport pallets from one compartment into another. After dropping off a pallet, he was backing up the forklift when he encountered an automated guided vehicle (AGV) that was traveling in reverse to the same point. The AGV was operated by a guided system built into the concrete floor. Employee #1 was standing with his back to the AGV, looking over his left shoulder, and had to choose between hitting the AGV or striking a stairway that led to the mezzanine storage area. He steered the forklift to avoid hitting the AGV and struck the stairway l-beam, fracturing his lower left leg. Emergency Services responded and transported Employee #1 to Memorial Medical Center. Four days later, while undergoing surgery, he slipped into a coma. He was removed from life support, at his family's request, on December 30, 1997.

An employee was repairing equipment when he was struck by an automated material-handling robot. He died of his injuries.

An employee was operating a die-casting machine used to manufacture automotive parts. At the beginning of the first shift, each die pair has a Julian date screw installed with the current date on it. Operators from each of three shifts would punch a dot on the date screw to have the stamp indicate on which shift the parts were manufactured. One day, a backup die-casting machine operator was punching a dot for the second shift on the two pairs of dies on his machine. No one was watching him. While he was doing this, an alarm on the machine sounded. This alarm is designed to announce when there is a problem, such as the machine's jamming or operating out of sequence. Nearby machine operators heard the alarm and responded. When they approached the machine, they saw the backup die-casting machine operator in the die area. They found that his head was severely crushed. The machine was on. The robot arm had been stopped after it had removed the part and moved out of the way. The automatic sprayer had been turned off, but the machine was left on and in automatic. The machine had not been locked out. Investigation revealed that, with the robot arm off and out of the way and with the sprayer shut off, the machine will continue to cycle if not turned off. The employer had a lockout program that was inadequate. It did require employees to lock out the die-casting machines during repair or adjustments in the die area. However, employee interviews revealed that it was routine for the die punching operation to be performed without the machine being locked out. In addition, two supervisors admitted that they did not enforce the requirement to lock out the machines. In fact, they had worked in the die areas themselves without locking out the machine. The machine runs automatically, wit

Employee #1 was using a welding/drilling robot to assemble frames for basketball backboards. In this process, the material used to make the backboards is laid out on an A-frame turning table. One side drills the holes and the other side welds the material together; when the one side has been drilled, the table rotates 180 degrees for it to be welded. Employee #1 noticed that one of the holes had not been drilled completely and he reached between the A-frame to manually set that particular drill. When he pushed the MANUAL button, the robot thought that the cycle was complete and it began turning the table for the next sequence. The rotating table and A-frame pinned Employee #1 against the wall on the welding side. He suffered chest trauma, for which he was hospitalized.

Employee #1 and a coworker from AGA, a company that supplied gas to the Willard Foundry, were onsite to give an estimate on Willard's requested additions. They were being escorted by the head of maintenance. While the three of them were at the molten aliminum pouring area, the pouring operation, which was being executed by a robot, unexpectedly stopped. The escort left the two AGA employees to look for the problem. In about five minutes the escort found the problem in the shakeout area about 20 feet away. When he adjusted the switch, the pouring started again. Employee #1 and his coworker were on the pouring floor in the envelope of the robot ladle. Employee #1's chest was pinned against a mold by an approximately 150 lb ladle containing 1,400 degree Fahrenheit aluminum. He was killed.

An employee was tearing down a tested robot line for shipment. He pulled the bus fuses for one line, then began work in the control panel of an adjacent line. He contacted 480-volt parts in the control panel and was electrocuted.