Based on the limited information you gave, the answer to your question lies in a comparison of "legalities" and "realities". Legally, if you can prove that the machine's settings were designed at an unreasonably unsafe setting, or that it was not operating to manufacture specifications or design (ie- the setting for the force of the arm movement by the machine was to strong or high), then you could have a basis to pursue a products liability claim against the manufacturer, if you can show that the settings on the machine were that way when it left the manufacturer. Alternatively, you would have a claim against the arcade for failing to maintain the machine to proper manufacturer's settings. From a negligence theory, you would be facing an "assumption of the risk" claim and I personally don't believe that a claim that the manufacture failed to provide proper or sufficient instructions as to how to arm wrestle would be successful even if a "failure to warn" is technically a viable cause of action. From a realistic point of view, and as already noted by others, product liability claims are scientific and/or technical in nature and are, therefore, very expensive to litigate. An engineer would be needed to investigate and analyse force and stress factors, and possibly an additional expert in the manufacture and design of similar arcade machines to establish industry standards. Additionally, it would be necessary to establish what the machine's settings were as of the date of the accident, which might be problematical even if the machine is still available for inspection particularly depending on how much time has passed until the examination is actually performed. If your fractured humerus was conservatively treated, and there are minimal or no residual affects, the cost for litigating such a case could not make it realistically worth your time to prosecute. Good Luck.
Jeffrey I. Schwimmer, Esq.
20 Vesey Street - Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
(800) 370-3010
[email protected]