Appeals Court Restores Opportunity for Jury Trial in Fatal Machinery Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a federal district court’s dismissal of our client’s design defect claims in a wrongful death case involving industrial machinery.

The case arises from the tragic death of Luis Prieto, a 25-year-old laser-cutting system operator who was fatally crushed when a descending steel beam trapped him between two components of the laser-cutting system. We brought claims on behalf of his estate against the manufacturer, alleging that the machine was defectively designed and lacked critical safety features.

Federal appellate reversals are rare. This decision ensures that a jury will decide whether the manufacturer failed to implement mechanisms that would have made the machine safer.

The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on all claims, effectively ending the case before trial. We appealed that decision.

In a published opinion issued February 6, 2026, the First Circuit vacated the dismissal of the design defect and related warranty claims, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.

The appellate court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to create a genuine dispute as to whether the system should have included additional safety measures—specifically, a pressure-sensitive safety mat and an emergency stop device accessible from the hazard area. Our expert testified that these safety mechanisms were feasible, would not interfere with the machine’s function, and would have prevented Mr. Prieto’s death.

The trial court rejected the design defect claims on the grounds that our expert testified that the system with a barrier fence installed, as designed, would be a reasonable way to guard the dangerous area between machines. The First Circuit disagreed, explaining that a jury could reasonably find from our expert’s testimony that the presence of a barrier alone did not eliminate the need for additional protective measures.

The court reaffirmed an important principle under Massachusetts law: when there is evidence of a feasible, safer alternative design that could reduce risk without impairing performance, the issue is for a jury to decide.

While the First Circuit affirmed dismissal of certain installation and maintenance claims, the central design defect claims—the claims addressing whether the machinery itself was reasonably safe as designed—are now back on track.

We are grateful for the careful review by the appellate court and proud to continue pursuing accountability on behalf of Mr. Prieto’s family.