Human Engineering in Civil Tort Proceedings

  • Carl A. Silver
  • Stewart Cohen


Human engineering is a discipline that draws on the resources of engineering, psychology, and physiology to enhance human welfare (especially health, safety, and sometimes satisfaction) and productivity or efficiency through the design of equipment, procedures, and environments. The human engineer, alone or as a team member, tests and evaluates equipment and procedures, develops methods and materials for personnel selection and training, and monitors existing systems and components for conformity to good human engineering design practice. The Human Factors Society, Inc. (Santa Monica, CA 90406) is the scientific society for the profession. It has more than 4, 500 members and publishes the bimonthly journal Human Factors.


Human Factor Expert Testimony Human Engineering Human Engineer Permanent Threshold Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Optical Company v. Weidenhamer, 404 N.E.2d 606, (Indiana Ct. App., 1980).Google Scholar
  2. Anderson v. Huron Engineering Co., 604 P.2d 674 (Colo. 1979).Google Scholar
  3. Ayoub, ML, Purswell, J., & Hicks, J. (1977). Data collection for hand tool injury: An approach. In V. Pezoldt (Ed.) Rare event I accident research methodology. Washington DC: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett v. Marquis, 325 Mass. 375, 90 N.E.2d 551 (1950).Google Scholar
  5. Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp., 60 N.J. 402, 290 A.2d 281 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Company, 518 S.W.2d 868 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. Borel v. Fiberboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973).Google Scholar
  8. Bowman v. Fretts & Leeper Construction Co., 227 Pa. Super. 347, 322 A.2d 719 (1974).Google Scholar
  9. Chapanis, A. (1976). Ergonomics in a world of new values. In Proceedings: 6th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, July 11–16, 1976 (pp. i-ix). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  10. Chapanis, A., & Kinkade, R.G. (1972). Design of controls. In H.P. Van Cott & R.C. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (Revised Ed., pp. 345–379). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Cool v. Curtis Wright, Inc., 363 Pa. 60, 66 A.2d 287 (1949).Google Scholar
  12. Cornog, D.Y., & Rose, F.C. (1967). Legibility of alphanumeric characters and other symbols: IL A reference handbook (National Bureau of Standards, Miscellaneous 262–2). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, L.E. (1949). Human factors in the design of manual machine controls. Mechanical Engineering, 71, 811–816.Google Scholar
  14. Dean v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 300 S.W.2d 431 (MO. 1957).Google Scholar
  15. Dewar, R.E., Ells, J.G., and Cooper, P.J. Evaluation of roadway guide signs at a large airport. Transportation Engineering, 47, 19–23.Google Scholar
  16. Drury, C.G., & Baum, A.S. (1976). Manual process control: A case study and a challenge. Applied Ergonomics, 17, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122 (1972).Google Scholar
  18. Ehehalt v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Nyari O’Dette, Inc., 481 A.2d 365 (Pa. Comwlth. Ct. 1985).Google Scholar
  19. Farbacher v. Frank, 228 Pa. Super. 35, 323 A.2d 233 (1974).Google Scholar
  20. Federal Rule of Evidence for Courts and Magistrates. Public Law 93–595, Sect. 1, January 2, 1975; 88 stat. 1926, As amended to February 1, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Fiorentino v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, 416 N.E.2d 998 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).Google Scholar
  22. Gamst, F. (1975). Human factors analysis of the diesel-electric locomotive cab. Human Factors, 17, 149–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Giese, W.J. (1946). The interrelationship of visual acuity at different distances. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 91–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonzalez v. Virginia Carolina Chemical Company, 239 F. Supp. 567 (1965).Google Scholar
  25. Gordon v. Niagara Machine & Toolworks, 574 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1978).Google Scholar
  26. Gould, J.D., Alfaro, L. Finn, L. Haupt, L., & Minuto, A. (1987). Reading from CRT displays can be as fast as reading from paper. Human Factors, 29, 497–517.Google Scholar
  27. Grether, W.F., & Baker, C.A. (1972). Visual presentation of information. In H.A. Van Cott & R.G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (rev. Ed., pp. 41–121). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  28. Grice, R.G., Nullmeyer, R., & Spiker, A.V. (1982). Human reaction time: Toward a general theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hampton v. S.S. Kresge Co., 224 Pa. Super. 543, 307 A.2d 363 (1973).Google Scholar
  30. Hanscom, F.R. (1975). An evaluation of icy bridge warning signs. Traffic Engineering, 45, 17–20.Google Scholar
  31. Harrison v. Flota Murcanta Grancolombina S.A., 577 P.2d 183 (N.M. App. 1978).Google Scholar
  32. Hinkel v. R.H. Macy, Inc., 201 NYS.2d 211 (NY. Sup. Ct. 1960).Google Scholar
  33. Hinkle v. H.J. Heinz Co. 298 A.2ed 632, 7 Pa. Comwlth. 216 (1972).Google Scholar
  34. Hoffman v. Herman, 107 Pa. Super. 92, 163 A. 452 (1960).Google Scholar
  35. Horberg, U., & Rumar, K. (1979). The effect of running lights on vehicle conspicuity in daylight and twilight. Ergonomics, 22, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubbard-Hall Chemical Co. v. Silverman, 340 F.2d 402 (1st Cir. 1965).Google Scholar
  37. Human Factors Society. (1988). 1988 Directory and Yearbook. Santa Monica CA:Google Scholar
  38. Human Factors Society. Jenkins, Administrator v. Poley, 160 Pa. Super. 6, 50 A.2d 32 (1946).Google Scholar
  39. Johnson v. Husky Industries, Inc., 536 F.2d 645 (6th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
  40. Johanson, G., & Backland, F. (1970). Drivers and road signs. Ergonomics, 13, 741–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones v. Hittle Service, Inc., 219 Kan. 627, 549 P.2d 627 (1967).Google Scholar
  42. Kantowiz, B.H. & Sorkin, R.D. (1983). Human factors: Understanding people-system relationships. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Laubache, et al. v. Colley, 283 Pa. 366, 128 A. 88 (1956).Google Scholar
  44. Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa. Super. 509, 393 A.2d 941 (1978). Maize v. Atlantic Refining Company, 41 A.2d 850 (Pa. 1945).Google Scholar
  45. McCann v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 119 Pa. Super. 205, 180 A. 750 (1962).Google Scholar
  46. McCormick, E.J., & Sanders, M.S. (1982). Human factors in engineering and design (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  47. McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 528 P.2d 522 (Oregon 1974). Melnick, W. (1979). Hearing loss from noise exposure. In C Harris (Ed.), Handbook of noise control (pp. •- •). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  48. Miller v. Bock Laundry Machine Company, 568 S.W.2d 648 (Texas 1977).Google Scholar
  49. Moon, P., & Spenser, D.E. (1944). Visual data applied to lighting design. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 34, 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morrison v. Clearview Medical Plaza, 357 So.2d 1386 (La. App. 1978).Google Scholar
  51. Oldroyd, et al. v. W.W. Kerby and Son, 317 Pa. 220, 166 A. 203 (1960).Google Scholar
  52. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman, 388 N.E.2d 541 (Indiana Ct. App., 1979).Google Scholar
  53. Petrie v. E.A. Myers Co., 269 Pa. 134, 112 A. 240 (1955).Google Scholar
  54. Pizatella, T.J., & Moll, M.B. (1987). Simulation of the after-reach hazard on power presses using dual palm butto actuation. Human Factors, 29, 9–18.Google Scholar
  55. Restatement of Tort (Second) (1986). American Law Institute: St. Paul, Minn. Saddler v. Bethal Markets, Inc., 267 F.2d 805 (3rd Cir., 1959).Google Scholar
  56. Salmon v. Parke-Davis Co., 520 F.2d 1359 (4th Cir. 1975). Schmidt v. Plains Electric, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 1979).Google Scholar
  57. Shinar, D., & Acton, M.B. (1978). Control-display relationships on the four-burner range: Population stereotypes versus standards. Human Factors, 20, 13–17. Shurley v. Hoskins, 271 So.2d 439 (Miss. 1973).Google Scholar
  58. Sloan, L.L. (1947). Rate of dark adaptation and regional threshold gradient of the dark adapted eye: physiologic and clinical studies. American Journal of Ophthalomy, 30, 705–720.Google Scholar
  59. Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, LTD., 608 2d 571 (5th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  60. Toenges v. Schleehauf, 368 Pa. 247, 82 A.2d 15 (1951).Google Scholar
  61. Walton, K. (1974). The pathology of Raynaud’s phenomenon of occupational origin. In W. Taylor (Ed.), The vibration syndrome New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  62. Wegel, R.L., & Lane, C.E. (1924). The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and its probable relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Physcial Review, 23, 266–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wery v. Buffalo Railroad Company, 268 Pa. 381, 112 A.2d 117 (1955). Wieder v. Towmotor Corp., 568 F. Supp. 1058, affirmed 734 F.2d 9 (1982).Google Scholar
  64. Williams, N. (1975). Biological effects of segmental vibration. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 17, 37–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williamson v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Right Foods, Inc., 80 NM 591, 458 P.2d 843 (1973).Google Scholar
  66. Wollgalter, M.S., Godfrey, S.S., Fontenelle, G.A., Desaulniers, D.R., Rothstein, P.R., & Laughrey, K.R. (1987). Effectiveness of warnings. Human Factors, 29, 599–612.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl A. Silver
  • Stewart Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations