Crash With

SUV

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Serious W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Stopped

SV Contact Area

Rear Left

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

0

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

CP Contact Area

Front

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Clear

Investigating Agency

Scottsdale Police Department

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On June [XXX], 2026 at 2:53 AM MT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Scottsdale, California was in a collision involving an SUV on [XXX] near [XXX]. The Waymo AV was stopped facing east in the rightmost of two designated left turn only lanes on [XXX], for a red light at the intersection with [XXX]. While the Waymo AV was stopped, an SUV traveling eastbound at a high rate of speed on [XXX] traversed to the left across two lanes, and into the Waymo AV's lane of travel. The SUV maneuvered to the right as it approached the Waymo AV from behind, and the front left side of the SUV made contact with the rear right side of the stopped Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. Both vehicles sustained damage. The driver of the SUV was transported from the scene to the hospital by ambulance with serious injuries. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

Pickup Truck

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

SV Contact Area

Left

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

22

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Entering Traffic

CP Contact Area

Front Right

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Intersection

Weather

Clear

Investigating Agency

Phoenix Police Department

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On May [XXX], 2026 at 3:59 PM MT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Phoenix, Arizona was in a collision involving a pickup truck on [XXX] at [XXX]. The Waymo AV was traveling westbound in the second to the right lane on [XXX] and proceeding straight at a green light at the intersection with [XXX]. As the Waymo AV began to cross the intersection, a pickup truck traveling northbound in the designated right turn lane on [XXX]t proceeded to enter the intersection against a red light and began to maneuver to the left. The Waymo AV braked and maneuvered to the right as the pickup truck continued to proceed forward, and the front of the pickup truck made contact with the left side of the Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. Both vehicles sustained damage. Two passengers in the Waymo AV were not belted at the time of the collision. Two passengers in the Waymo AV were transported to a hospital by an ambulance with moderate injuries. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because individuals involved were transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment and a vehicle involved was towed away. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

Pickup Truck

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Lane / Road Departure

SV Contact Area

Front Right

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

20

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Stopped

CP Contact Area

Rear Left

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Cloudy

Investigating Agency

Los Angeles Police Department

Make

ZEEKR

Model

RT

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On May [XXX], 2026 at 6:44 AM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Los Angeles, California was in a collision involving a pickup truck on [XXX] near {XXX}. The Waymo AV was traveling southbound in the right lane on {XXX] in autonomous mode when it began to slow for a queue of traffic stopped for a red light at the intersection with [XXX]. As the Waymo AV was slowing, the Waymo AV transitioned to manual mode and the test driver maneuvered to the right and accelerated forward. As the test driver maneuvered the Waymo AV to pass to the right of a pickup truck that was stopped facing south in the right lane in the queue of traffic ahead, the front left side of the Waymo AV made contact with the rear right side of the pickup truck, the front of the Waymo AV made contact with the west curb of {XXX], and the front right side of the Waymo AV made contact with a street light pole near the curb. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was not engaged and a test driver was operating the Waymo AV in manual mode. Both vehicles sustained damage. The test driver of the Waymo AV was transported to a hospital by an ambulance with moderate injuries. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

SUV

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

SV Contact Area

Left, Front Left, Rear, Front

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

2

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Lane / Road Departure

CP Contact Area

Left, Rear, Front

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Clear

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On April [XXX], 2026 at 9:24 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving an SUV on [XXX] near [XXX]. The Waymo AV was traveling southbound on [XXX] when an SUV traveling northbound on [XXX], without activated headlights, maneuvered to the left and entered the Waymo AV's lane of travel. The Waymo AV began to slow to yield to the SUV as the SUV continued to approach, and the left side of the SUV made contact with the left side of the Waymo AV. As a result of this contact, the Waymo AV was pushed to the right and the front right tire of the Waymo AV made contact with the left side of a passenger car parked facing south on the west curb of 47th Avenue. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. The Waymo AV and the SUV sustained damage. The passengers of the Waymo AV were transported to a hospital by an ambulance, alleging minor injuries. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because individuals involved were transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

Van

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Parked

SV Contact Area

Rear Right

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

0

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

CP Contact Area

Front Right

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Clear

Investigating Agency

San Francisco Police Department

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On February [XXX], 2026 at 11:06 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a van on [XXX] near [XXX]. The Waymo AV was parked at the curb facing north on [XXX] with its hazard lights activated for a passenger drop-off. While the Waymo AV was parked, a passenger in the Waymo AV opened the rear right side door in preparation to exit the vehicle. A van traveling northbound on [XXX] in the right lane accelerated as it approached the Waymo AV from behind, and the front of the van made contact with the rear of the stationary Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. Both vehicles sustained damage. A passenger in the Waymo AV was unbelted at the time of the collision as they were preparing to exit the vehicle. Both passengers of the Waymo AV were transported to a hospital by an ambulance, one of the passengers had minor injuries and one of the passengers had moderate injuries. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

Non-Motorist: Pedestrian

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

SV Contact Area

Rear Left

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

4

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Other, see Narrative

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Clear

Investigating Agency

Scottsdale Police Department

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On November [XXX], 2025 at 12:02 AM MT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Scottsdale, Arizona was in a collision involving a passenger of the Waymo AV on [XXX] near [XXX]. The Waymo AV was travelling northbound in the left lane of [XXX]. While the AV was in motion, the two passengers seated in the rear of the Waymo AV removed their seatbelts and opened the right rear passenger side door. The Waymo AV detected the opened door and began to slow in lane. While the Waymo AV was slowing to a stop, the passenger seated in the right rear passenger seat exited the vehicle through the open door, placed their feet on the ground, and the rear right tire of the Waymo AV came to a stop on top of the passenger's right foot. The Waymo AV remained stopped on top of the passenger's foot until emergency services arrived and lifted the right side of the vehicle. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. The passenger of the Waymo AV was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment with moderate injuries to the foot. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment and a vulnerable road user was struck by an involved vehicle. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

Passenger Car

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Stopped

SV Contact Area

Rear Right

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

0

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Proceeding Straight

CP Contact Area

Front Right

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Intersection

Weather

Clear

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On October [XXX], 2025 at 9:55 AM EDT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Atlanta, Georgia was in a collision involving a passenger car on [XXX] at [XXX]. The Waymo AV was traveling northbound on [XXX] and came to a stop at the stop sign at the intersection with [XXX]. A passenger car traveling directly behind the Waymo AV proceeded without stopping, and the front driver side of the passenger car then made contact with the rear side of the stationary Waymo AV. First responders arrived at the scene and assisted the rider out of the Waymo AV. An ambulance was called to the scene and Waymo later learned that the rider was transported to the hospital. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. The Waymo AV sustained damage. The passenger in the Waymo AV was not belted at the time of the collision they were in the process of locating the belt fastener for the seat they were occupying. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Crash With

SUV

Highest Injury Severity Alleged

Moderate W/ Hospitalization

SV Pre-Crash Movement

Making Left Turn

SV Contact Area

Right

SV Precrash Speed (MPH)

25

CP Pre-Crash Movement

Changing Lanes

CP Contact Area

Front Right

Within ODD?

Yes

Automation System Engaged?

ADS

Roadway Type

Street

Weather

Clear

Investigating Agency

Santa Clara Police Department

Make

JAGUAR

Model

I-PACE

SV is the subject vehicle — the one whose operator filed the report. CP is the crash partner, the other party. Contact area is where each was struck. NHTSA requires a report for any crash involving the driving system regardless of fault.

On July [XXX], 2025 at 1:57 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle ("Waymo AV") operating in Santa Clara, California was in a collision involving an SUV on [XXX] near [XXX]. The Waymo AV was stopped on [XXX], preparing to turn right onto northeastbound [XXX] while yielding to oncoming traffic. Once oncoming traffic had cleared, the Waymo AV began to turn right into the rightmost lane on northeastbound [XXX]. As the Waymo AV was completing the right turn, the test driver transitioned the Waymo AV to manual mode. The test driver changed lanes without a signal activated, crossing through the center travel lane and into the dedicated left turn lane where the test driver began to make an unprotected left across southwestbound [XXX]. During this unprotected left turn, an SUV was traveling in the leftmost southwestbound lane. The SUV began to maneuver towards the rightmost lane while the test driver was completing the left turn, and the front of the SUV made contact with the passenger side of the Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AV's Level 4 ADS was not engaged and a test driver was operating the Waymo AV in manual mode. Both vehicles sustained damage. Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 1 of Standing General Order 2021-01 because an individual involved was transported from the scene to a hospital for medical treatment, a vehicle involved was towed away, and airbag deployment. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

a 73-year-old woman was knocked down and struck multiple times by a Starship food delivery robot

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

At approximately 9:45 a.m. on October 31, 1994, Employee #1, of R. Howard Strasbaugh, Inc. in San Luis Obispo, CA, was alone, testing a circular robot machine. He had done this many times before; however, this time he forgot to de-energize the machine. When he put his left hand on a wheel to adjust the belt, the machine started and caught his thumb between the wheel spoke and the hard stop for the wheel. The thumb was not amputated, but tendons were cut. Employee #1 was taken to French Hospital, where he stayed for two days. Due to lack of employer knowledge, a general citation for failing to de-energize the machine was issued instead of a serious one.

Employee #1 was working as an electrician at an auto assembly plant. He noticed that a part that had been spot welded by robots at a previous station was out of position. Employee #1 broke a light curtain, disabling another robot, and climbed up on an auto/cab shuttle transfer to hit the part into place. As the shuttle transfer device completed a cycle it caught Employee #1's right leg between the top and bottom rail. In order to extricate Employee #1, the leg had to be amputated by rescue personnel. No lockout procedures were used by Employee #1, although he had received training and was an authorized employee.

Employee #1 was operating a die casting machine that had an electrical interlock safety gate which would disengage all operations when opened. Employee #1, who is very small, was able to slide past it without disengaging the machine. She did this while cleaning the mouth of the die and was hit in the back with the robot ladle, which spilled approximately two pounds of 1,200 degree F molten aluminum on her back. Employee #1 was hospitalized with burns.

Employee #1 was manually removing plastic waste baskets from a mold. The machine normally had a robot that removes parts, but it was not functioning. The plate that forms the bottom of the wastebasket pneumatically ejects the parts from the mold, then retracts into position. Employee #1 caught her finger in the pinch point while removing the part.