Case Notes

Hand Brake Manufacturer Settles Fatal Accident Case

The manufacturer of a special hand brake for paraplegic drivers agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a man who claimed the brake failed, causing a fatal collision. Estate of Burnsed v. Wells-Enberg Co., No. 48-2003-CA-007656-0, Orange County Circuit Court, FL, June 25, 2007.

Michael Burnsed, a paraplegic in his 50s, was driving down a hill when he was unable to engage his brakes. He died in the ensuing crash, and his survivors sued Wells-Enberg Co., the brake manufacturer. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the hand control contained a rod that became loose due to vibration, causing the control to malfunction. There should have been more safeguards in place to prevent any loosening caused by vibration, according to plaintiffs' counsel.
Wells-Engberg claimed its safeguards were sufficient and it has sold more than 30,000 units without any such incidents. The manufacturer settled the claim.

Summary Judgment Denied in 'File Cabinet' Injury Case

The court dismissed a claim for breach of implied warranty and failure to warn. Plemmons v. Steelcase Inc., 04 Civ. 4023, 04 Civ. 4023, SDNY, March 28, 2007, NYLJ, April 5, 2007.

The plaintiff was injured when a four-drawer lateral file cabinet, bought from defendant manufacturer's authorized distributor, fell while he was placing files in its lower three drawers. The plaintiff sued the cabinet's maker for failure to warn and breach of implied warranty, among other things. The cabinet was designed with an interlock mechanism to prevent multiple open drawers. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff used only the cabinet's top drawer to store small items. Subsequent to the date of the injury, an inspection of the cabinet revealed that three 'Zytel clips,' used in the interlock mechanism, were missing.

The court denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, reasoning that from the evidence, a fact-finder could conclude that the cabinet was not defective when it left the defendant's possession and control. Partly granting defendant judgment, the court also dismissed plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim. Neither plaintiff nor his expert explained how the location of defendant's warning caused the cabinet's fall. The court also noted that the plaintiff loaded the cabinet in the manner instructed by the label, thus indicating he had read the warning label.

Failure-to-Repair Did Not Cause Pressure Washer Accident

A pressure washer trigger was not to blame for a man shooting his own foot. Salazar v. United Rentals, No. BC281761, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, CA, May 4, 2007.

Jaime Salazar rented a pressure washer from a United Rentals service center in Long Beach and brought it to a job site. While cleaning a storage tank, Salazar slipped and fell, accidentally shooting himself with its high-pressure jet stream. Salazar sued United Rentals, arguing that the pressure washer did not stop when he released the trigger because United Rental's staff failed to repair it before renting. The defense contended that it did not shut off when Salazar released it because he had tied a rag around the trigger, locking it in place. A jury rejected Salazar's argument and found for United Rentals.

$32.5 Million Award in Brain Injury Case

A jury awarded $32.5 million to a man who sustained brain damage because his Ford Escort seat belt malfunctioned in a head-on crash. Force v. Ford Motor Co., No. 99-CA-3878, Orange County Circuit Court, FL, May 17, 2007.

Mark Force, then 27, had to have 20% of his brain removed after his head struck the pillar between the windshield and driver side window. His attorneys argued that the seat belt in the 1993 Escort, which was designed by Mazda Motor Corp. and manufactured by Ford Motor Co., lacked a component that would ensure that the shoulder restraint's retractor would lock in an accident. Canadian Escorts had this component, known as a webgrabber, while U.S. models did not. The jury found that both Ford and Mazda were liable for the design defect and were negligent for failing to warn customers that the belts could spool out.

New York Law Applies to Plane Crash Litigation

Plaintiffs were limited to pecuniary damages under a conflicts of law analysis. Rehl v. Lear Romec, CV-05-3516, EDNY, April 26, 2007, NYLJ, May 2, 2007.

A New York domiciliary died when a plane flying from Vermont to New York crashed in Connecticut. The plaintiffs, his parents, were also New York domiciliaries. The plane, made by a Florida-based Delaware company had an engine made in Pennsylvania. The crash was attributed to a fire caused by a fuel pump, made by defendant California company's Ohio-based division, refurbished by an Alabama company. Co-defendant Connecticut-based Delaware company annually inspected the plane in Connecticut and identified the engine to be repaired in New York by a New York firm. The plaintiffs' diversity-based wrongful death action sought partial summary judgment that under Connecticut law their damages were not limited to pecuniary losses. After conducting a choice-of-law analysis under ”6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (1971), the district court concluded that New York was the state with the most significant contacts under '145(2). Thus it held that under the applicable New York wrongful death statute, plaintiffs' damages were limited to pecuniary damages.

Hand Brake Manufacturer Settles Fatal Accident Case

The manufacturer of a special hand brake for paraplegic drivers agreed to pay $1 million to the family of a man who claimed the brake failed, causing a fatal collision. Estate of Burnsed v. Wells-Enberg Co., No. 48-2003-CA-007656-0, Orange County Circuit Court, FL, June 25, 2007.

Michael Burnsed, a paraplegic in his 50s, was driving down a hill when he was unable to engage his brakes. He died in the ensuing crash, and his survivors sued Wells-Enberg Co., the brake manufacturer. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the hand control contained a rod that became loose due to vibration, causing the control to malfunction. There should have been more safeguards in place to prevent any loosening caused by vibration, according to plaintiffs' counsel.
Wells-Engberg claimed its safeguards were sufficient and it has sold more than 30,000 units without any such incidents. The manufacturer settled the claim.

Summary Judgment Denied in 'File Cabinet' Injury Case

The court dismissed a claim for breach of implied warranty and failure to warn. Plemmons v. Steelcase Inc., 04 Civ. 4023, 04 Civ. 4023, SDNY, March 28, 2007, NYLJ, April 5, 2007.

The plaintiff was injured when a four-drawer lateral file cabinet, bought from defendant manufacturer's authorized distributor, fell while he was placing files in its lower three drawers. The plaintiff sued the cabinet's maker for failure to warn and breach of implied warranty, among other things. The cabinet was designed with an interlock mechanism to prevent multiple open drawers. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff used only the cabinet's top drawer to store small items. Subsequent to the date of the injury, an inspection of the cabinet revealed that three 'Zytel clips,' used in the interlock mechanism, were missing.

The court denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, reasoning that from the evidence, a fact-finder could conclude that the cabinet was not defective when it left the defendant's possession and control. Partly granting defendant judgment, the court also dismissed plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim. Neither plaintiff nor his expert explained how the location of defendant's warning caused the cabinet's fall. The court also noted that the plaintiff loaded the cabinet in the manner instructed by the label, thus indicating he had read the warning label.

Failure-to-Repair Did Not Cause Pressure Washer Accident

A pressure washer trigger was not to blame for a man shooting his own foot. Salazar v. United Rentals, No. BC281761, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, CA, May 4, 2007.

Jaime Salazar rented a pressure washer from a United Rentals service center in Long Beach and brought it to a job site. While cleaning a storage tank, Salazar slipped and fell, accidentally shooting himself with its high-pressure jet stream. Salazar sued United Rentals, arguing that the pressure washer did not stop when he released the trigger because United Rental's staff failed to repair it before renting. The defense contended that it did not shut off when Salazar released it because he had tied a rag around the trigger, locking it in place. A jury rejected Salazar's argument and found for United Rentals.

$32.5 Million Award in Brain Injury Case

A jury awarded $32.5 million to a man who sustained brain damage because his Ford Escort seat belt malfunctioned in a head-on crash. Force v. Ford Motor Co., No. 99-CA-3878, Orange County Circuit Court, FL, May 17, 2007.

Mark Force, then 27, had to have 20% of his brain removed after his head struck the pillar between the windshield and driver side window. His attorneys argued that the seat belt in the 1993 Escort, which was designed by Mazda Motor Corp. and manufactured by Ford Motor Co., lacked a component that would ensure that the shoulder restraint's retractor would lock in an accident. Canadian Escorts had this component, known as a webgrabber, while U.S. models did not. The jury found that both Ford and Mazda were liable for the design defect and were negligent for failing to warn customers that the belts could spool out.

New York Law Applies to Plane Crash Litigation

Plaintiffs were limited to pecuniary damages under a conflicts of law analysis. Rehl v. Lear Romec, CV-05-3516, EDNY, April 26, 2007, NYLJ, May 2, 2007.

A New York domiciliary died when a plane flying from Vermont to New York crashed in Connecticut. The plaintiffs, his parents, were also New York domiciliaries. The plane, made by a Florida-based Delaware company had an engine made in Pennsylvania. The crash was attributed to a fire caused by a fuel pump, made by defendant California company's Ohio-based division, refurbished by an Alabama company. Co-defendant Connecticut-based Delaware company annually inspected the plane in Connecticut and identified the engine to be repaired in New York by a New York firm. The plaintiffs' diversity-based wrongful death action sought partial summary judgment that under Connecticut law their damages were not limited to pecuniary losses. After conducting a choice-of-law analysis under ”6 and 145 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law (1971), the district court concluded that New York was the state with the most significant contacts under '145(2). Thus it held that under the applicable New York wrongful death statute, plaintiffs' damages were limited to pecuniary damages.