Lisa Mull was a line operator at Zeta Consumer Products’ plastic-bag manufacturing facility in New Jersey. One of Mull’s duties was to work with a machine known as a “winder,” which winds plastic bags onto spools for packaging and delivery. The machine’s frequent malfunctions required Mull to clear the jam and replace the nylon ropes that turned the machine’s cylinders. On one occasion, after Mull had turned off the machine by pressing the stop button on the control panel, the winder suddenly began to operate, pulling Mull’s left hand into the machine and causing serious injuries, including amputation of two fingers. Several months before the accident, OSHA had cited Zeta for failing to provide its employees with so-called lockout/tagout procedures, which are required by federal law and are designed to control the release of hazardous energy when a worker is servicing or performing maintenance on equipment or machinery. Also prior to the date of Mull’s injury, another line operator had sustained injuries similar to Mull’s; Zeta was aware of the injuries. In addition, other line operators indicated that Zeta, motivated by a desire to enhance productivity, had altered the original design of the winder by removing safety interlock switches (which prevent the machine from operating when the access cover is open). Line operators had also complained to management that Zeta failed to post warnings on the winder to inform workers of its “sudden start-up” capabilities or that the safety interlock switches had been removed. Mull sued the employer for damages, and Zeta moved for summary judgment on the basis that Mull’s sole remedy was recovery under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act. What, if any, OSHA liability does Zeta face based on these facts? How should the court rule? Should Zeta be concerned about any other potential liability arising out of these facts? [Mull v. Zeta Consumer Products, 823 A.2d 782 (2003).]