Case Notes

The plaintiff sued the homeowner and the fan's manufacturer and distributor in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging the fan was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it did not have a pre-installed guard or safety clutch and defendants had failed to adequately warn of its dangers. Following plaintiff's opening statement, but before any evidence was taken, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer and distributor as a matter of law. After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the case against the homeowner, the plaintiff appealed.

Affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held the failure-to-warn claim could not succeed because the undisputed facts revealed that the dangers of operating the unguarded fan at ground level and immediately adjacent to the path of transit where the plaintiff was working were objectively obvious, and thus the plaintiff should have appreciated the danger substantially to the same extent as if a warning had been provided. Indeed, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not want to go anywhere near the unguarded fan because he was aware it posed serious dangers.

The court also affirmed dismissal of the design defect claim because the plaintiff had not offered an expert to substantiate that claim. While the court acknowledged no expert was needed for the jury to understand that a fan not equipped with a guard or safety clutch could cause serious injury, an expert was needed to assess whether adding such safety features would unduly interfere with the fan's cost or performance, especially since it was made for commercial and industrial uses.'

'

Court Grants Summary Judgment for Power Tool Manufacturer

In Torres v. Skil Corporation, 2013 WL 3105815 (D. Mass. June 17, 2013), the plaintiff was injured while using a circular saw when the saw's blade guard did not automatically snap into place after he finished his cuts. Aware of the danger of putting the saw down without the blade guard in place, the plaintiff tried to “flick” it down with his right hand. The plaintiff's hand missed the blade guard, however, causing his ring finger to be partially and permanently severed and the tip of his middle finger to be amputated almost fully.'

Acting pro se, the plaintiff sued the saw manufacturer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (the Massachusetts near-equivalent of strict liability) asserting, among other claims, that the saw was defectively designed. The plaintiff contended the saw should have incorporated a “kill switch” that would have stopped the rotating saw blade instantaneously upon activating the switch. Neither the plaintiff nor anyone else on his behalf had inspected or tested the mechanical components of the saw for evidence of a defect; rather, the plaintiff testified it was his opinion the blade guard's failure to deploy must have been the result of a defect. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not proffered any expert testimony that the saw was defective, there was a feasible alternative design or the alleged defect caused his injury.'

In granting the motion, the court explained that, except in rare circumstances where the dangers of a product are within the common knowledge of a layperson, a design defect plaintiff must present competent expert testimony that a defect in the product, present at the time it was sold, caused his injuries. Here, the plaintiff's reliance on his own assertions regarding the need for a kill switch to stop the spinning saw blade was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the mechanical components of the saw's blade guard were beyond a layperson's common knowledge.

Moreover, there was evidence the saw had been designed and manufactured consistent with industry standards. While not dispositive as to the absence of a defect, this evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find for defendant in the absence of any evidence the industry could and should have done more to ensure a safer blade design. ' David R. Geiger, Foley Hoag LLP

'

MA Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Design Defect

In Christensen v. Thornton , 988 N.E.2d 471 (Mass. App. Ct. June 3, 2013), the plaintiff suffered injuries when he caught his hand in an industrial exhaust fan while installing drywall in a customer's home. The operating instructions supplied with the fan warned that if it was installed at a height of less than seven feet, it must be used with a guard in order to meet federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards, and a warning label to the same effect was affixed to all such fans.

The fan's manufacturer made a guard that could be purchased as a separate component, and guards made by other manufacturers also could be used, but the fan could not be purchased with a guard pre-installed. After acquiring the fan secondhand, the homeowner, a licensed electrician, temporarily mounted it to the frame of a door that opened at the top of a three-step stairway. The bottom of the fan was flush with the edge of the top step and the fan was parallel to the path of the stairs with its blades exposed. The homeowner did not obtain the operating instructions when he purchased the fan, and did not remember a warning label on it. However, he testified at deposition that even if he had seen such a warning, this would not have deterred him from installing the fan in the manner in which he did.

The plaintiff sued the homeowner and the fan's manufacturer and distributor in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging the fan was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because it did not have a pre-installed guard or safety clutch and defendants had failed to adequately warn of its dangers. Following plaintiff's opening statement, but before any evidence was taken, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the manufacturer and distributor as a matter of law. After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the case against the homeowner, the plaintiff appealed.

Affirming the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held the failure-to-warn claim could not succeed because the undisputed facts revealed that the dangers of operating the unguarded fan at ground level and immediately adjacent to the path of transit where the plaintiff was working were objectively obvious, and thus the plaintiff should have appreciated the danger substantially to the same extent as if a warning had been provided. Indeed, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not want to go anywhere near the unguarded fan because he was aware it posed serious dangers.

The court also affirmed dismissal of the design defect claim because the plaintiff had not offered an expert to substantiate that claim. While the court acknowledged no expert was needed for the jury to understand that a fan not equipped with a guard or safety clutch could cause serious injury, an expert was needed to assess whether adding such safety features would unduly interfere with the fan's cost or performance, especially since it was made for commercial and industrial uses.'

'

Court Grants Summary Judgment for Power Tool Manufacturer

In Torres v. Skil Corporation, 2013 WL 3105815 (D. Mass. June 17, 2013), the plaintiff was injured while using a circular saw when the saw's blade guard did not automatically snap into place after he finished his cuts. Aware of the danger of putting the saw down without the blade guard in place, the plaintiff tried to “flick” it down with his right hand. The plaintiff's hand missed the blade guard, however, causing his ring finger to be partially and permanently severed and the tip of his middle finger to be amputated almost fully.'

Acting pro se, the plaintiff sued the saw manufacturer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (the Massachusetts near-equivalent of strict liability) asserting, among other claims, that the saw was defectively designed. The plaintiff contended the saw should have incorporated a “kill switch” that would have stopped the rotating saw blade instantaneously upon activating the switch. Neither the plaintiff nor anyone else on his behalf had inspected or tested the mechanical components of the saw for evidence of a defect; rather, the plaintiff testified it was his opinion the blade guard's failure to deploy must have been the result of a defect. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not proffered any expert testimony that the saw was defective, there was a feasible alternative design or the alleged defect caused his injury.'

In granting the motion, the court explained that, except in rare circumstances where the dangers of a product are within the common knowledge of a layperson, a design defect plaintiff must present competent expert testimony that a defect in the product, present at the time it was sold, caused his injuries. Here, the plaintiff's reliance on his own assertions regarding the need for a kill switch to stop the spinning saw blade was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the mechanical components of the saw's blade guard were beyond a layperson's common knowledge.

Moreover, there was evidence the saw had been designed and manufactured consistent with industry standards. While not dispositive as to the absence of a defect, this evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find for defendant in the absence of any evidence the industry could and should have done more to ensure a safer blade design. ' David R. Geiger, Foley Hoag LLP

'