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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

Employee #1 was inside a chiron making adjustments to a wheel size changeover. A robot is used to move the wheel around the cell. Employee #1 was holding the robot controls in his hands, and apparently activated the robot while bending over the wheel to check the settings. The robot came into the chiron unit to remove the wheel, but instead pinned Employee #1 against the wheel, crushing him to death.

Employee #1, the operator of a robot, went to investigate and/or fix a malfunction in the robot without locking it out. When Employee #1 tried to fix the system, he activated the robot and the robot's arm crushed him against a part being transported on a conveyor. Employee #1 was killed.

Employee #1, who had been employed by Bay Mirror, Inc. for 1 1/2 years, leaned over the end of the mirror production roll line to brush off a piece of broken glass. This was not part of his or anyone's duties. This action placed him in the return path of a twin-armed robot mirror unloader conveyor. The arms follow a 90 degree arc of descent, then travel into 9 1/2 inch wide spaces in the end of the roll line, ending in a horizontal position, parallel to the roll line and floor. Employee #1 was struck in the back of the head and back, and pushed into the 9 1/2 inch space with the robot arm on top of him. He was pronounced dead of internal injuries at the hospital, although no pulse was achieved by emergency response personnel at the site. Employee #1 was actually inside the travel rails of the robot, according to management, when he leaned over. An emergency stop was pushed within 10 seconds. The employee's presence in the hazard area was not necessary to his assigned job, although the area was not guarded and there were no warning signs. A serious accident related violation of 4002(a) was cited.

Employee #1 was working with an industrial robot that takes parts from a conveyor, feeds them into a machining operation; takes the parts and inserts them into a multi-spindle drill press; and then puts them on a spray painting turntable for rust-proofing. Employee #1 had apparently replaced a drill bit and returned to production but, because the parts didn't properly contact locator switches on the drill, the robot stopped. (This was a common problem.) Employee #1 apparently then reentered the robot area without locking out or hitting the "system stop" button or pushing the "hold" button. The "system stop" button can be hit earlier in the cycle before hitting "hold," and was found to override the "hold." Apparently Employee #1 pushed the parts against the locator switches that automatically activated the robot and the robot inadvertently crushed Employee #1 against the drill press. Employee #1 died. The original interlocked gate guards had been damaged over time, removed, and not replaced.

EMPLOYEE #1 CLIMBED ONTO THE CHIP JAW OF AN AUTOMATIC LATHE. WHILE HE WAS CHANGING THE CUTTING TOOL TIPS THE PRODUCT HANDLING ROBOT MOVED. HE WAS CRUSHED AGAINST THE HEAD STOCK OF THE LATHE.

Employee #1 was standing in front of the hopper leading to a body maker. When a robot arm tried to put some metal plates into the hopper, Employee #1 was crushed between the hopper and the metal plates. He was killed.