Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Corp., 7561-3-III
| Decision Date | 09 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 7561-3-III,7561-3-III |
| Citation | 739 P.2d 1177,48 Wn.App. 432 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 4 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 68, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,560 Steve ANDERSON, Appellant, v. DREIS & KRUMP MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Respondent. |
Kenneth B. Howard, R. Bruce Owens, Howard & Owens, Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, for appellant.
Frederic G. Fancher, Richter, Wimberley, Ericson & Woods, Spokane, for respondent.
Steve Anderson brought this products liability action to recover damages for personal injuries received while operating a Chicago Press Brake (press) manufactured by Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corporation (Dreis). Mr. Anderson alleged Dreis was liable under theories of breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability. The trial court entered summary judgment for Dreis, dismissing the action. On appeal, Mr. Anderson's numerous assignments of error may be reduced to four basic issues; these are whether: (1) the breach of warranty claims were properly dismissed for lack of privity; (2) the warnings on the press were inadequate; (3) the press was defectively designed; and (4) modification of the press' activating system after the press left Dreis' control was the sole proximate cause of Mr. Anderson's injury. We remand for trial.
Mr. Anderson was injured on July 3, 1979, 1 while operating a press owned by his employer, Comet Corporation. The press was manufactured by Dreis, an Illinois corporation in the business of designing and manufacturing such industrial equipment. Dreis sold the press to Niblock Machine, Inc., a distributor who, in turn, sold the press to Comet. Comet installed the press in its Spokane facility. Neither Comet nor Niblock is a party to this action.
A detailed description of the press is necessary for an understanding of our ruling. It was designed as a general purpose or "multifunctional" press, capable of performing a variety of functions. Comet used the press for corrugating metal. 2 During operation, the press' "ram," or vertically movable upper section, would descend upon the "bed" or lower section. Shaping tools or "dies" are attached to the ram as well as the bed. When the ram descends, the metal is bent into the desired shape by the upper die pressing the metal against the lower die. The area between the ram die and the bed die is referred to as the "point of operation."
The press, as originally designed, manufactured, and sold to Comet, could be activated by either of two means: the first was a 2-button control located at shoulder level above the ram. These buttons had to be pressed simultaneously, using both hands, to start the press, causing the ram to descend. The 2-button system was also the press' principal safety feature because the operator's hands were on the buttons, and thus prevented from entering the point of operation when the ram descended. The second means of activation was by depressing a foot treadle connected to a rod which ran along the base of the press. The treadle's position could be moved right and left along the length of the press to accommodate the position of the operator. This movement allowed the treadle to be positioned so the operator was within arms reach of the point of operation. Accidental depression of the treadle could be prevented by engaging a "treadle lock"; however, that device apparently was not automatic, but rather had to be manually engaged. Dreis provided no accompanying safety device to prevent the operator's hands from entering the point of operation when the press was activated by the treadle. The operator could choose either the 2-button control or the treadle by flipping a lever on the side of the press.
When the press was delivered, Comet received safety and operator manuals provided by Dreis, instructing prospective operators how to use the press safely. One of these safety manuals instructed purchasers never to eliminate or bypass any safety device installed on the press. Moreover, that manual requested purchasers to contact Dreis with respect to the continued use of the press after any modification.
Additionally, Dreis attached the following warning sign to the front of the press near the point of operation:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
When delivered, the 2-button device was the operational activation system. Thereafter, Comet disconnected that control and rewired the press so that it could be activated by pushing a single button attached to the end of a long, flexible electric cord. This flexible cord, like the adjustable treadle, allowed the operator to move along the length of the press' bed. Because this method of activation required the use of only one hand, the operator's other hand was left free to enter the dangerous point of operation.
After modifying the activation system, Comet did not install "point-of-operation" guards. 3 Comet was aware of the danger to operators from use of the unguarded press and discussed these dangers at company meetings prior to the accident. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries inspected the press prior to the accident and found the press to be unsafe. Although not clear from the record, Dreis contends Comet was fined for lack of point-of-operation safety devices on the press.
This accident occurred when Mr. Anderson reached into the point-of-operation area to brush away small circles of aluminum that had accumulated during the stamping process. He was leaning into the die area when his stomach accidently hit the single button activator, the cord of which had been laid nearby. As a result, the ram cycled downward, severely injuring one of his hands.
In moving for summary judgment, Dreis argued: (1) the press was not defective as manufactured and sold since the press included the 2-button (activator) safety feature; (2) adequate warnings were attached to and accompanied the press when it was sold; and (3) Comet's modification of the activation system was the superseding cause of Mr. Anderson's injury.
In response, Mr. Anderson argued the press was designed to be used with the treadle activator. Because use of the treadle allowed the operator to place his hands within the point-of-operation area, the press should have included corresponding point-of-operation or barrier-type guards. He asserted the single button activator, though a modification, did not cut off Dreis' liability because that activation method was no more dangerous than the foot treadle, and the kind of harm which occurred, i.e., accidental injury to hands, was no different than the kind of harm which would have occurred if the treadle had been used.
Mr. Anderson's arguments were supported by three experts familiar with this type of industrial equipment. These experts stated the press was defectively designed because of lack of point-of-operation guards and inadequate warnings. The Superior Court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, primarily because of Comet's modification; Mr. Anderson appeals. Additional facts will be incorporated below as necessary.
Mr. Anderson initially contends the court erred in dismissing his claims for breach of express and implied warranty for lack of privity. His assertion is not well taken. The press was sold by Dreis to Niblock; Niblock sold to Comet who, in turn, employed Mr. Anderson. Because contractual privity does not exist between Mr. Anderson and Dreis, the court properly dismissed the breach of warranty action. RCW 62A.2-318; Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 151, 727 P.2d 655 (1986).
Mr. Anderson next contends the court erred in dismissing his strict liability and negligence claims relating to Dreis' duty to warn operators of the serious harm possibly resulting from hands or other body parts being placed in the die area. He argues the warnings, as given, inadequately informed Mr. Anderson of the full extent of the dangers associated with the press. He maintains his experts' affidavits raise genuine issues of material fact as to the adequacy of the warnings. We disagree.
Under strict liability, a product may be found defective, though faultlessly designed and manufactured, if it is not reasonably safe when placed in the hands of the ultimate operator by the manufacturer because of the manufacturer's failure to provide adequate warnings on how to use the product safely. Baughn, at 137, 727 P.2d 655; Teagle v. Fischer & Porter Co., 89 Wash.2d 149, 155, 570 P.2d 438 (1977). Likewise, a manufacturer may be negligent for failure to provide adequate warnings with respect to dangers involved in a product's use which are, or should be, known to the manufacturer. Baughn, 107 Wash.2d at 137, 727 P.2d 655; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 (1965). However, under either theory, no warning need be given where the danger is obvious or known to the operator. Baughn, at 138-39, 140, 727 P.2d 655; Mele v. Turner, 106 Wash.2d 73, 78-80, 720 P.2d 787 (1986). See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 388 comment k and 402A comment j (1965).
Two of Mr. Anderson's experts state the warnings attached to the press and in the manuals accompanying the press at the time of delivery were inadequate because they failed to inform the operator of the consequences of placing a hand or other body part within the point-of-operation area. We agree the warnings in the maintenance and safety manuals sent to Comet along with the press had little efficacy with respect to Mr. Anderson; there is no indication he saw those manuals. See Balido v. Improved Mach., Inc., 29 Cal.App.3d 633, 105 Cal.Rptr. 890, 899 (1972). Nonetheless, the warning attached to the machine was, by itself, sufficient to " 'catch the attention of persons who could be expected to use the product [and] apprise them of its dangers and ... advise them of the measures to take to avoid those dangers.' " (Footnote omitted.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.
...747, 753-56, 818 P.2d 1337 (1991); Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wash.2d 127, 142, 727 P.2d 655 (1986); Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Corp, 48 Wash.App. 432, 441, 739 P.2d 1177, review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987).9 3 American Law of Products Liability § 32:61 (3d ed. 1993).10 See Ayer......
-
Torres v. Xomox Corp.
...Cal.Rptr. 486, 581 P.2d 197 ), or modification of the product has made it more dangerous (see, e.g., Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Corp. (1987) 48 Wash.App. 432, 739 P.2d 1177, 1185-1186). In this case, whether modification of the valve was a superseding cause of Torres' death, or only one......
-
Gall v. McDonald Industries
...727 P.2d 655; Callahan, 72 Wash.2d at 827-28, 435 P.2d 626; Lunt, 62 Wash.App. at 359-60, 814 P.2d 1189; Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Corp., 48 Wash.App. 432, 439, 739 P.2d 1177; review denied, 109 Wash.2d 1006 (1987); Reed v. Pennwalt Corp., 22 Wash.App. 718, 722, 591 P.2d 478 (1979); Ew......
-
Collins Co., Ltd. v. Carboline Co.
...Ski Area v. U.S. Electrical Motors (E.D.Mich.1987), 666 F.Supp. 115 (applying Michigan law); Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corp. (1987), 48 Wash.App. 432, 438, 739 P.2d 1177, 1182; 2 L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability § 3.02(6), at 3-194 through 3-200 (1988); § 3.02(6), a......