DaSilva v. American Brands, Inc., s. 87-1204
| Citation | 845 F.2d 356 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | 87-1205,Nos. 87-1204,s. 87-1204 |
| Parties | 25 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 413, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 11,763 Escolastica DaSILVA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees. USM Corporation, Defendant, Appellant. Escolastica DaSILVA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. AMERICAN BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Appellees. USM Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Anil Madan with whom Rosann C. Madan, Faith A. LaSalle and Madan and Madan, Boston, Mass., were on briefs for defendant, appellant.
Paul F. Leavis with whom Diane M. Meibaum and Connolly & Leavis, Boston, Mass., were on brief for Escolastica DaSilva.
Thomas D. Burns with whom John J. McGivney, Darrell Mook and Burns & Levinson Before COFFIN and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, * Senior Circuit Judge.
Boston, Mass., were on brief for American Brands, Inc.
USM Corporation appeals from a jury determination in a wrongful death action that USM is liable to the estate and survivors of Richard DaSilva for two million dollars. Appellant also challenges the dismissal by the district court of its cross-claim for contribution from American Brands, Inc. (American). We affirm.
Mr. DaSilva was an operator of a Banbury mixer for Acushnet Company, a subsidiary of American. The Banbury is a large industrial machine manufactured by USM, used to mix ingredients for various types of rubber and plastic. Mr. DaSilva was found dead with his head and shoulders caught inside the hopper door of this machine. The jury concluded he was killed by the Banbury as a result of negligence and breach of implied warranty by USM. The principal argument of USM on appeal is that there was not enough evidence to support the jury's conclusions regarding causation. Because this is a challenge by a defendant to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Wallace Motor Sales v. American Motors Sales Corp., 780 F.2d 1049, 1055 (1st Cir.1985). We begin our analysis with a review of this evidence.
The mixing vessel of the Banbury is elevated so that the operator performs his duties on a raised platform, generally out of view of other workers. As part of his routine, the operator places ingredients into the machine through the hopper door, closes that door, and lowers a ram device which descends from the ceiling of the mixing chamber and exerts pressure on the batch to keep the ingredients fully involved with the rotors. The operator may open and close the door during mixing in order to add additional ingredients. When the mixing is complete, the operator rings a bell to inform the workers below that he is going to drop the batch through the drop door to the workers below for further processing. After the batch is dropped, the operator opens the hopper door, lifts the ram and, if necessary, scrapes the door and ram in order to remove residual materials. The scraping requires the operator to lean over the door somewhat. He may also lean over the door to verify that the batch cleared the rotors when dropped and to check that the rotors are clean.
The operator controls the machine from a control panel located near the hopper door. The hopper door is operated hydraulically, controlled by a lever situated in the control panel and approximately two and one half feet to the right of the door. When the lever is placed in the "close" position, the door normally shuts within one to two seconds. The door of the machine operated by DaSilva, however, occasionally stuck open; usually it then would be kicked shut by the operator.
On the night of January 10, 1983, Mr. DaSilva mixed his last batch of material. Following normal procedure, he then rang the bell and dropped the batch. After the workers had completed their tasks and vacated the working area, a fellow employee attempted to locate Mr. DaSilva because the latter had not shut down his station. The employee found Mr. DaSilva dead with his head, right arm, and chest inside the hopper door. The control lever for the door was in the closed position.
DaSilva's children and his wife, individually and as administratrix of his estate, brought a diversity action against American and USM for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of the decedent. They alleged that Mr. DaSilva had sustained his injuries as a result of negligence and breach of implied warranty by USM in the design of the Banbury mixer. They initially further alleged that the accident occurred because of negligence by American in providing safety services and monitoring at its subsidiary. The latter claim was dismissed at the commencement USM was no more successful in its defense on the merits of the underlying suit. The jury returned a verdict finding USM liable for both breach of warranty and negligence in DaSilva's death. The breach of warranty verdict included a finding of two million dollars in damages. 2 The jury awarded no damages for pain and suffering by the decedent. In addition to its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding causation, appellant alleges that, at the jury trial, the court allowed incompetent and speculative evidence; that the court gave improper instructions regarding the relevant time of defect in the Banbury; and that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive as a matter of law. 3 Appellant also argues that, during the bench trial on USM's claim for contribution, the district court applied the wrong law and made clearly erroneous findings of fact. We consider separately below the allegations of error at the jury and bench trials.
of trial by stipulation of the parties and without monetary settlement. American remained a party, however, because USM filed a cross-claim seeking contribution. 1 The cross-claim alleged that American had assumed and negligently performed the duty to establish, perform, and monitor safety procedures for the Banbury mixer at Acushnet. The district court heard this claim separately, without a jury, and ruled in favor of American, finding that it had assumed no responsibility for Banbury safety
When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, the role of this court is to determine "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was any combination of circumstances from which a rational inference may have been drawn in favor of the plaintiff." DeMedeiros v. Koehring Co., 709 F.2d 734 (1st Cir.1983). We believe that the inferences drawn by the jury were rational.
Plaintiffs-appellees state that the "only probable cause" of the accident was the following scenario: (1) DaSilva placed the hopper door switch in the closed position; (2) the door did not close because it was stuck; (3) DaSilva did not notice the door had not closed; (4) he later leaned on and over the door to inspect or clean, forgetting that the switch was in the closed position; (5) his weight on the door caused it to unstick; and (6) the door then closed rapidly and crushed him to death. We will not disturb the jury's findings on the basis of the causation issue if there was evidence by which a rational juror could have determined that each of these events occurred.
The evidence clearly supported a finding that DaSilva placed the switch in the closed position. There was testimony that normally the operator would be alone on the platform, that DaSilva was the operator and was alone on the night the accident happened, and that it was the operator who handles the door control mechanism. This is sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that it was DaSilva who placed the lever in the closed position.
Secondly, there was uncontested testimony that the hopper door of this particular machine frequently stuck. It was not necessary as appellant contends, for the plaintiff to introduce specific evidence that the door stuck on this occasion. The jury could infer, because the door had stuck on previous occasions, that it had also stuck just prior to DaSilva's death.
There was also sufficient evidence by which the jury could have concluded that DaSilva did not notice the door had not closed. They could have come to this conclusion on the basis of testimony that the operator's job was "very busy," involving numerous tasks which had to be accomplished quickly during and after the mixing operation. These tasks often included opening and closing the hopper door to add ingredients while the batch was mixing. From evidence of such an environment, it would be reasonable to conclude that DaSilva opened the door, added ingredients, put the lever in the closed position, but then was distracted as he moved onto the next task, not noticing the door had failed to close and forgetting that he had put the lever in the closed position by the time he returned his attention to the door.
There was rather extensive evidence that an operator was required to "look over the door" or to "look into the machine" after completion of a batch. In particular, it was common practice for an operator to check whether a batch had completely cleared the rotors after the operator had opened the drop door to drop the batch. A jury justifiably could conclude that DaSilva had looked over the door and into the machine after he had dropped his last batch. Similarly, the jury could have inferred that DaSilva leaned on the door while checking the inside of the machine.
Another Banbury operator testified that on a previous occasion his arm was trapped by the suddenly closing hopper door when, after putting the control lever in the close position and failing to notice that the door had not closed, he had leaned into the machine and perhaps "brushed up against the door." This testimony substantiated the above inferences and suggested the weight of a man could cause a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. e-Smart Techs., Inc.
...qualifications to produce admissible opinions on the technological capacities of e-Smart's cards. See, e.g., DaSilva v. American Brands, Inc., 845 F.2d 356, 361 (1st Cir.1988) (rejecting defendant's argument that mechanical engineer was not qualified to opine on design of machine because hi......
-
Northern Heel Corp. v. Compo Industries, Inc.
...of this nature, we are careful not "to place unnecessary constraints on the discretion of the trial court." DaSilva v. American Brands, Inc., 845 F.2d 356, 361 (1st Cir.1988). The record suggests that the district court was concerned that permitting White to testify as to his interpretation......
-
Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.
...v. Worth, 447 F.2d 738, 741 (5th Cir.1971).24 Peteet v. Dow Chem., 868 F.2d 1428, 1431 (5th Cir.1989).25 See DaSilva v. American Brands, 845 F.2d 356, 360 (1st Cir.1988).26 Fed.R.Evid. 702 (emphasis added).27 See Garrett v. Desa Indus., Inc., 705 F.2d 721, 724 (4th Cir.1983).28 Id. at 724.2......
-
Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
...grounds by Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 146–47, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) ; DaSilva v. Am. Brands, Inc., 845 F.2d 356, 361 (1st Cir.1988) ; see also In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F.Supp.2d 164, 202 (S.D.N.Y.2009). However, with respect to Hyman's o......
-
Final trial preparation
...to testify and will allow the jury to determine what weight to give the expert’s limitations. FRCP 702: DaSilva v. American Brand , 845 F.2d 356 (1st Cir. 1988). Raise the expert’s competency by voir dire if illness, age, hearing, vision, or other physical or mental limitations impair the e......
-
Opinion
...The testimony could have been useful in assisting the jury in determining the appropriate standard of care. DaSilva v. American Brands , 845 F.2d 356 (1st Cir. 1988). The trial court properly allowed testimony of an engineer even though engineer had only limited experience with machine at i......
-
Opinion
...The testimony could have been useful in assisting the jury in determining the appropriate standard of care. DaSilva v. American Brands , 845 F.2d 356 (1st Cir. 1988). The trial court properly allowed testimony of an engineer even though engineer had only limited experience with machine at i......
-
Opinion
...The testimony could have been useful in assisting the jury in determining the appropriate standard of care. DaSilva v. American Brands , 845 F.2d 356 (1st Cir. 1988). The trial court properly allowed testimony of an engineer even though engineer had only limited experience with machine at i......