Smith v. Joy Techs., Inc.

• Citation: 828 F.3d 391
• Decision Date: 30 June 2016
• Docket Number: Nos. 14–6406/6461,s. 14–6406/6461
• Parties: Anthony Smith, Jr. and Loretta Lynn Smith, Plaintiffs–Appellants (14–6406), Chartis Casualty Company, Intervening Plaintiff–Appellant (14–6461), v. Joy Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Joy Mining Machinery, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

828 F.3d 391

Anthony Smith, Jr. and Loretta Lynn Smith, Plaintiffs–Appellants (14–6406)

Chartis Casualty Company, Intervening Plaintiff–Appellant (14–6461)

v.Joy Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Joy Mining Machinery, Defendant–Appellee.

Nos. 14–6406/6461

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: April 27, 2016

Decided and Filed: June 30, 2016

ARGUED: R. Lauren Horner, Jones Ward, PLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants in 14–6406. Kelley D. Gray, Pohl & Aubrey, PSC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 14–6461. Nicholas C. Pappas, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lawrence Lee Jones II, Jones Ward, PLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants in 14–6406. Kelley D. Gray, Pohl & Aubrey, PSC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant in 14–6461. Nicholas C. Pappas, Darren A. Craig, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Casey Wood Hensley, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Louisville, Kentucky, Larry C. Deener, Landrum & Shouse, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN

, Circuit Judge.

Anthony Smith was severely injured in October 2010 while working amidst a high-wall mining (HWM) system at a coal mine owned and operated by Southern Coal Corp. in Harlan County, Kentucky. As he was disengaging a conveyor car from the system, Smith inadvertently placed his foot in a “pinch point” that existed between a hydraulic pusher used to launch cars into the mine and an outer guide rail on the mining platform. When the hydraulic pusher was prematurely activated by another worker, it crushed Smith's foot against the guide rail. The injury resulted in the amputation of his lower left leg.

Smith and his wife filed suit in Kentucky state court against the HWM system's manufacturer, Joy Technologies, Inc. (Joy), and against the conveyor-car manufacturer, ICG ADDCAR Systems, LLE (ICG), alleging negligence and strict liability for defective design and failure to warn, as well as loss of consortium. ICG removed the case to federal court and was later dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. After a six-day trial in October 2014, the jury returned a verdict in Joy's favor.

On appeal, the Smiths argue that the district court erred by (1) instructing the jury that Joy could be liable for negligent failure to warn only if Anthony Smith was unaware of the danger he faced, and (2) instructing the jury regarding a rebuttable presumption of nondefectiveness. The Smiths also request that we certify to the Kentucky Supreme Court questions of state law concerning both of these jury instructions. Finally, intervenor Chartis Casualty Company, which provided worker's compensation insurance for Southern Coal, challenges a third jury instruction regarding the apportionment of fault among the parties. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY the Smiths' motion to certify their proposed questions of state law.

I. BACKGROUND

A. HWM system design and operation

HWM systems are used to extract coal in surface-mining operations. Operating much like a train, the system includes a continuous extraction device (called a “miner”) made up of a string of conveyor cars that are kept in place by guide rails, with the cars collecting the coal as it is dislodged from the seam. Attached to the miner's first car is a large “cutter head” that penetrates the coal seam. As the cutter head advances further into the seam, more conveyor cars are added to the miner.

The continuous miner is deployed from a launch platform. Hydraulic car pushers, known as “pusher jacks,” are installed on the launch platform and push additional cars into the mining hole as the miner advances. After all the cars are filled with coal from the coal seam, mine workers reverse the conveyor function and remove each car, one by one, from the launch platform to empty its contents.

Joy manufactured the HWM system in question in the early 1990s. The system was leased and sold to various operators over the course of several years. In 1999, it was sold for scrap to Pittston, another mining operator. The system was later acquired by Appalachian Fuels, which broke down the system and moved it to several different mining locations.

At the time that the HWM system was originally sold by Joy, its launch platform included two inner guide rails to align the continuous miner as it entered the mine. Of particular importance to the present case is that the original HWM system did not include the outer guide rails that contributed to the creation of a “pinch point” on the launch platform. These outer guide rails were added later by Teddy Triplett, then an employee of Appalachian Fuels, who would subsequently become Smith's foreman at the Harlan County mine.

The parties do not dispute that Triplett was the one who added these outer guide rails, presumably because he needed to maintain alignment between the HWM system and a continuous miner larger than the one that Joy manufactured. Joy maintains that the outer guide rails were never part of its original design because they were unnecessary to the functioning of its own continuous miner, and that it had no knowledge that the HWM system had been modified to include outer guide rails.

Between 2000 and 2007, Triplett and his crew moved the HWM system to several different locations across Illinois and Kentucky. When Triplett became the foreman at the Harlan County mine, he asked Smith to help him relocate the HWM system, which was then in Illinois. Triplett and Smith disassembled the HWM system, transported it to Kentucky, and reassembled it for use at the Harlan County mine.

B. The incident

On October 29, 2010, Smith was working on the HWM system's launch platform, disengaging the conveyor cars as they were being removed from the mining hole. This process required workers to uncouple each car in turn. Sometimes electrical cables on the cars would become stuck during the removal process, which required that the cables be physically dislodged in order to remove the car. This is precisely what happened immediately before the incident at issue. While working to dislodge one car's electrical cable, Smith inadvertently placed his foot in the “pinch point” between the hydraulic pusher and one of the outer guide rails on the launch platform. At the same moment, a worker sitting in the cab of the miner prematurely activated the hydraulic pusher. The pusher advanced, crushing Smith's foot between the pusher jack and the blunt end of the outer guide rail.

As a result of this injury, a Kentucky administrative law judge determined that Smith was totally disabled and awarded him workers' compensation benefits under Kentucky's Workers' Compensation Act. These benefits are being paid by Smith's employer, Southern Coal, through Chartis.

C. Procedural background

The Smiths filed suit against both ICG and Joy in 2011. In 2012, Chartis filed an intervening complaint in order to protect its subrogation interests regarding the payment of workers' compensation benefits to Anthony Smith. ICG was later dismissed from the action pursuant to a settlement. The remaining claims consisted of the Smiths' direct claims against Joy and the intervening claim of Chartis.

To help facilitate a possible settlement, the district court held a nonbinding summary jury trial in August 2014. That trial resulted in a $7.7 million verdict in favor of the Smiths. Further attempts at settlement were unsuccessful, however, and a six-day jury trial was held in October 2014.

At trial, Anthony Smith testified regarding his knowledge of the dangers of the HWM system. He specifically stated that he had been warned about the existence of the “pinch point,” was told to avoid it, and was shown where the HWM system's emergency stops were located. The HWM system included no visual or audible warning systems, barriers, or guard rails to raise additional awareness of the existence of the “pinch point.”

On the fifth day of trial, the district court held a charge conference in which it considered Joy's proposed jury instructions. Some of the proposed instructions differed from those provided at the summary jury trial. The Smiths objected to two instructions in particular.

First, the Smiths objected to Joy's proposed instruction concerning a product manufacturer's duty to warn a “knowing user” under Kentucky law. Joy's proposed instruction, adopted by the district court as Jury Instruction 19, stated:

In this case, Joy had a duty to the Plaintiffs to exercise ordinary care to warn of dangers known to Joy, or dangers Joy had reason to know, but not known to persons whose use of the product could reasonably be anticipated.... To succeed on this claim, Plaintiff Anthony Smith must prove ... [that he] was unaware of the dangers of the High Wall Mining System....

The Smiths argued that this instruction contravenes Kentucky's comparative-fault principles. Their argument relied primarily on two Kentucky Supreme Court cases, Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh , 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010)

, and Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc. , 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013). In those cases, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's knowledge of an open and obvious danger does not necessarily bar all recovery in a premises-liability context. McIntosh , 319 S.W.3d at 394–94 ; Shelton , 413 S.W.3d at 918. The Smiths argued that, rather than barring recovery altogether, these relatively recent cases establish that a plaintiff's knowledge of a danger goes to the apportionment of fault, not to whether a duty exists. Jury Instruction 19, they contended, erroneously created an absolute bar to recovery based on Anthony Smith's knowledge of the dangers of the HWM system, whereas the instruction should instead have characterized his knowledge as a factual question that bears on the apportionment of fault.

After receiving briefing by both parties, the district court overruled the Smiths' objection. The court cited a...