Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc.
| Citation | 731 F.3d 1081 |
| Decision Date | 23 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–5128.,12–5128. |
| Parties | Derek BRASWELL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CINCINNATI INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant–Appellee, and Hardy Machinery, a foreign corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Frank R. Paynter (Bret A. Smith with him on the brief), Bret A. Smith, Attorney at Law, P.C., Muskogee, OK, for Appellant.
Jason Goodnight (Steven K. Balman with him on the brief), Franden, Woodard, Farris, Quillin & Goodnight, Tulsa, OK, for Appellee.
Before TYMKOVICH, HOLLOWAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Derek Braswell suffered a horrific workplace accident. While he was operating a press brake, a heavy machine tool, manufactured by Cincinnati, Inc., his right arm was crushed, and eventually had to be amputated. Signs on the machine warned the operator not to reach into the die area, where a hydraulic-powered ram descends to bend sheet metal. Despite these warnings, Braswell reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal. While doing so, he accidentally stepped on a pedal triggering the ram's descent. More unfortunate, the machine's safety equipment designed to prevent this type of accident had been removed or disabled sometime prior to the accident.
After his injury, Braswell filed a suit against Cincinnati on theories of strict products liability and negligence. The suit was asserted as a diversity claim, and that basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is not challenged. The district court granted summary judgment for Cincinnati on the grounds that a subsequent owner had modified the press brake to create the danger and that the gated pedal on the original model made the press brake not unreasonably dangerous. We agree that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous: with its warnings and safety devices, the machine did not pose a danger beyond that which the ordinary operator of the machine would appreciate.
Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment.
Cincinnati manufactures a hydraulic press brake, a machine tool commonly used to shape sheet metal. The tool consists of a ram, which presses the metal, and a die, into which the metal is pressed. The operator feeds sheet metal between the die and the ram, and may hold the sheet until the ram has lifted. The machine is operated by a foot pedal, known as a footswitch, though other operator controls are usually included. The machine is designed to have a long lifetime, and often has multiple owners. Given the diverse and complex nature of various manufacturing processes, many of the machine's features may be added or removed according to an owner's needs. For example, the machine could be set up to work on thick pieces of metal, requiring a wide opening to feed, or thin pieces, requiring an opening as small as a half inch.
Derek Braswell's employer, Ventaire, Inc., purchased a Cincinnati press brake in 2007 from Hardy Machinery. At the time of the purchase, the machine was almost twenty years old. Cincinnati had first sold the press brake in 1989 to a company named Steelgard. Though the machine passed to many successive owners, Cincinnati continued to supply repair services. For example, one year before the accident a Cincinnati service technician visited Ventaire to install new software in the press brake and reprogram the machine.
As originally sold, the machine was equipped with a footswitch that had a front flap, or gate, to prevent its accidental depression. The operator had to lift the gate with his foot to access the enclosed pedal, and the gate would be resting on top of his foot while he used the machine. Moreover, the machine came equipped with two footswitches, each of which had to be depressed simultaneously by two different operators in order to trigger the ram.
Sometime between the press brake's original sale to Steelgard and its sale to Ventaire, the original footswitches were removed and replaced with ones that did not have a gate. At the time of Braswell's accident, one of the replacement footswitches had been disabled, such that the machine could be operated with a single footswitch unprotected by any gate.
Another safety feature on the original press brake was dual palm stations, a featuredesigned to prevent the accidental activation of the machine by a sole operator. The palm stations required two operators to each place their respective hands on a different button simultaneously in order to activate the machine, thereby making it nearly impossible for the machine to be activated while one operator's limb was inside the die area. This feature could be used in conjunction with the footswitches. The downside of this feature, however, was that an operator would not be able to hold the piece of sheet metal being fed into the machine. After Ventaire acquired the press brake, it disabled the palm stations so that the machine could be operated by one footswitch alone.
A final safety feature was a control panel, featuring an emergency stop button, that was mounted on the face of the machine. This emergency button on the panel could be reached by anyone standing close to the die area. By the time Ventaire purchased the press brake, however, the panel had been removed: it had been unbolted, rewired, and moved to a “remote pendant.” Aplt.App. 153.
The machine also came equipped with warnings displayed on prominent places on the machine:
THE FOOT SWITCH YOU ARE USING CANNOT PROTECT YOU FROM SERIOUS INJURY.
YOUR HANDS OR FINGERS CAN BE CRUSHED OR CUT OFF IF THE MACHINE YOU ARE OPERATING DOES NOT HAVE A GUARD OR OTHER WAYS TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM DANGEROUS MOVING MACHINE PARTS.
TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY ...
... DO NOT PLACE YOUR HANDS IN THE DIE AREA.
... DO NOT POSITION ANY PART OF YOUR BODY WHERE IT MAY BE STRUCK OR CRUSHED BY PART MOVEMENT.
... ALWAYS READ AND UNDERSTAND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY MANUAL BEFORE INSTALLING DIES, OPERATING OR SERVICING THE PRESS BRAKE.
As part of its operation, the press brake could be equipped with blocks to prevent the ram from descending. Though there is a factual dispute about whether Ventaire properly trained Braswell on using the blocks and whether it had made blocks available for employees, Braswell does not dispute that, in the press brake's manual, Cincinnati recommended using blocks whenever anyone—in spite of the warnings against doing so—needed to reach into the die area.
Ventaire had programmed the machine to operate in a three-step cycle: The first compression of the footswitch caused the ram to lower so that the metal was pinned; the second one caused the ram to actually press and bend the metal into the die; and the third one caused the ram to lift up.
On the day of the accident, Braswell was operating the press brake alongside a coworker. Braswell and the coworker were feeding in sheet metal, while only Braswell was operating the ram using a footswitch. Both operators were standing, and the functioning footswitch was mere feet from the press brake. A piece of sheet metal became stuck in the machine, and Braswell reached into the machine to remove the metal. At that point, Braswell accidentally pressed the footswitch, causing the ram to pin his arm inside the machine. Braswell screamed for help, and his supervisor came to his assistance. Instead of pressingthe ram lift button, however, the supervisor triggered the next movement in its cycle, further crushing Braswell's arm. When the ram was finally lifted, Braswell was rushed to the hospital, where his right hand had to be amputated.
Braswell filed suit in district court against Cincinnati. Braswell made three claims: (1) strict liability defective design, (2) negligent manufacture and design, and (3) failure to warn. After discovery, Cincinnati filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposing the motion, Braswell alleged that the press brake had an unreasonably dangerous design because, among other reasons, it was not equipped with an anti-trip footswitch, which requires a complete depression of the pedal each time the operator wants to reinitiate the machine's movement—a mechanism, Braswell contended, that would have prevented his injury.
The district court noted that Braswell, to defeat summary judgment, had to show there were disputed issues of material fact on each element of his products liability claim. Of the three elements in a products liability claim—that the press brake was (1) the cause of the injury, (2) defective at the time it left Cincinnati's control, and (3) unreasonably dangerous—the court concluded Braswell could not show a genuine issue on elements two or three. The press brake was not defective at the time it left Cincinnati's control because it contained a gated footswitch, which, the district court reasoned, would have prevented the accident. And the inclusion of the gated footswitch made the brake not unreasonably dangerous. The district court also stated that Oklahoma's product liability test encompassed both negligent and strict liability design theories; as a result, the court concluded, the negligent design claim failed as well. Finally, the district court concluded the inclusion of warnings on the machine satisfied Cincinnati's duty to warn. Accordingly, the district court entered summary judgment in Cincinnati's favor.
Braswell challenges the district court's rulings on (1) the products liability claims, and (2) the negligence claim. “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.” Oldenkamp v. United Am. Ins. Co., 619 F.3d 1243, 1246 (10th Cir.2010). Oklahoma substantive law applies to this diversity action. See Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142, 1145 (10th Cir.2003).
Applying Oklahoma law, we conclude there is no genuine issue of material fact on the products liability claims, and that Braswell waived his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc.
... ... That defect can stem from either a dangerous design 784 F.3d 1355 or an inadequate warning about the product's dangers. Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc., 731 F.3d 1081, 1085 (10th Cir.2013) (applying Oklahoma law) ; see also Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881, 886 (Okla.1994) ... ...
-
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.
... ... We have held that a party's attempt to raise a new argument in a motion for reconsideration is "not sufficient to preserve it for appeal." Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc., 731 F.3d 1081, 1093 (10th Cir.2013). "This rule, however, is not inflexible and the matter of what questions may be taken up and ... ...
-
Fleck v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Gen. Motors LLC)
... ... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) ; accord Roe v. City of Waterbury , 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir.2008) ... See Braswell v. Cincinnati, Inc. , 731 F.3d 1081, 1085 (10th Cir.2013) (applying Oklahoma law) ; Tansy v ... ...
-
United States v. Garcia
... ... See Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc. , 634 F.3d 1123, 112728 (10th Cir. 2011). On appeal, we can only consider forfeited arguments ... See United States v. Verner , 659 F. App'x 461, 467 (10th Cir. 2016) ; Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc. , 731 F.3d 1081, 1093 (10th Cir. 2013). These motions are not the place to ... ...