Case Notes

Manufacturer, Seller of Component Part Not Liable for Injury

A manufacturer and seller of a component part may not be liable under the Washington Product Liability Act where neither was responsible for the part's modification or use in the design or assembly of a piece of machinery that caused injury. Sepulveda-Esquivel v. Central Machine Works, Inc., No. 29123-1-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, Jan. 13, 2004.

Taurino Sepulveda-Esquivel suffered serious injuries during his employment at Vanalco when a piece of machinery fell on him. More specifically, a “bridge” secured to a crane by a hook fell when the crane operator lifted the bridge from a “pot.” A pot is a large machine used in the smelting of aluminum, approximately 10 feet tall, 18 feet long and 3 feet wide. A “bail,” which is a metal bar that looks like an inverted “V,” is welded to the top of the bridge. A metal latch called a “mouse” was designed by Vanalco's predecessor to go over the hook's mouth after the bail is in the hook. During the smelting of aluminum, a bridge is placed on to and around the top of a pot using an overhead crane and hook. Sepulveda was injured when the crane operator readjusted the bridge and the hook became loose from the bridge, causing the bridge to fall on Sepulveda. Sepulveda filed a products liability claim under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) against Ulven, the manufacturer of the hook, and Central Machine Works, which supplied the hook to Vanalco.

The trial court dismissed the product liability claims against Ulven and Central Machine Works. Sepulveda appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. It held that neither Central nor Ulven made, supplied, or sold the finished, completed hook assembly with the mouse. Neither Central nor Ulven was asked to design, forge, make, or sell an interior, locking device on their hook. Furthermore, there was no duty for either Central or Ulven to overrule Vanalco's determination to use such hooks in multiple ways, some with, and some without latching devices. Vanalco, which was not a party to the action, was the party responsible for the design of the mouse. The court concluded that because neither Central nor Ulven was responsible for the final assembly with the mouse, it would be improper to impose liability on them when neither knew what the final use of the hook would be once purchased and utilized by Vanalco.

Manufacturer, Seller of Component Part Not Liable for Injury

A manufacturer and seller of a component part may not be liable under the Washington Product Liability Act where neither was responsible for the part's modification or use in the design or assembly of a piece of machinery that caused injury. Sepulveda-Esquivel v. Central Machine Works, Inc., No. 29123-1-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, Jan. 13, 2004.

Taurino Sepulveda-Esquivel suffered serious injuries during his employment at Vanalco when a piece of machinery fell on him. More specifically, a “bridge” secured to a crane by a hook fell when the crane operator lifted the bridge from a “pot.” A pot is a large machine used in the smelting of aluminum, approximately 10 feet tall, 18 feet long and 3 feet wide. A “bail,” which is a metal bar that looks like an inverted “V,” is welded to the top of the bridge. A metal latch called a “mouse” was designed by Vanalco's predecessor to go over the hook's mouth after the bail is in the hook. During the smelting of aluminum, a bridge is placed on to and around the top of a pot using an overhead crane and hook. Sepulveda was injured when the crane operator readjusted the bridge and the hook became loose from the bridge, causing the bridge to fall on Sepulveda. Sepulveda filed a products liability claim under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) against Ulven, the manufacturer of the hook, and Central Machine Works, which supplied the hook to Vanalco.

The trial court dismissed the product liability claims against Ulven and Central Machine Works. Sepulveda appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. It held that neither Central nor Ulven made, supplied, or sold the finished, completed hook assembly with the mouse. Neither Central nor Ulven was asked to design, forge, make, or sell an interior, locking device on their hook. Furthermore, there was no duty for either Central or Ulven to overrule Vanalco's determination to use such hooks in multiple ways, some with, and some without latching devices. Vanalco, which was not a party to the action, was the party responsible for the design of the mouse. The court concluded that because neither Central nor Ulven was responsible for the final assembly with the mouse, it would be improper to impose liability on them when neither knew what the final use of the hook would be once purchased and utilized by Vanalco.