Bautista v. Verson Allsteel Press Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. 85-3066,85-3066
• Citation: 504 N.E.2d 772,105 Ill.Dec. 487,152 Ill.App.3d 524
• Parties: , 105 Ill.Dec. 487, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,338 Augustin BAUTISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERSON ALLSTEEL PRESS CO., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 772

504 N.E.2d 772

152 Ill.App.3d 524, 105 Ill.Dec. 487,

Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,338

Augustin BAUTISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERSON ALLSTEEL PRESS CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-3066.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Second Division.

Jan. 27, 1987.

Law Offices of Gerard A. Facchini, and William J. Harte, Ltd., Chicago, Gerard A. Facchini, William J. Harte and Pamela S. Menaker, for plaintiff-appellant.

Law Offices of E. James Gildea, Chicago, William D. Kelly, for defendant-appellee.

Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Augustin Bautista filed a products liability action against defendant Verson Allsteel Press Co. Plaintiff alleged the machine, manufactured by defendant, was unreasonably dangerous in its improper design, lack of safety devices, and inadequate warnings relative to hazards of operation. A jury verdict was entered in favor of defendant. After the denial of plaintiff's post-trial motions, this appeal was filed.

Plaintiff was injured on July 14, 1975 while operating a press brake machine manufactured by defendant. It was one of six machines sold to plaintiff's employer, G & G Metal Forming, in April of 1969. Plaintiff, speaking only Spanish and unable to read or write in Spanish or English, began working for G & G Metal two-and-one-half months before the accident.

The function of a press brake is to bend and shape metal. The press itself is approximately 48 inches wide and 6 feet high. During operation, the ram, the movable upper section of the press, descends upon the bed, or lower section of the press. Dies are attached to the ram and the bed. When the ram descends upon the bed, the dies press the metal into the desired shape.

The area between the ram die and bed die is referred to as the "point of operation." Without insertion of the dies, there is no point of operation. The ram and bed are seven-and-one-half inches apart without a point of operation. The press can accommodate innumerable dies, the size and function of which may vary. Defendant sold this machine without dies and, therefore, without a point of operation. The variety of the dies, the size and shape of the parts made, and the variety of feeder systems all affect the selection of a suitable point of operation safety device.

The movable ram is controlled by a brake and clutch. The actual engaging mechanism, called a treadle, is manipulated by the operator's foot. The treadle is seven to eight inches off the floor. When the treadle is pressed, the clutch is engaged and the gearing mechanism causes the ram to come down with a 16-ton force. When the treadle is released, the clutch is disengaged and simultaneously, the braking mechanism is engaged. Releasing the treadle will stop the ram immediately at midcycle.

Due to the height of this machine, it was more comfortable for the operator to sit down while operating. The treadle, being seven to eight inches off the floor, required the operator to pick his foot up and down that height in order to engage and disengage the gearing mechanism for each operation. In addition, plaintiff's employer attached a table which extended across the front of the machine. This further restricted the area in which the operator could move his leg to operate the treadle. It was more comfortable for the operator to keep the treadle depressed, causing the ram to cycle continuously.

The machine included a warning plate in yellow letters against a black background which read, in part: "WORK SAFELY--Keep hands out of closing dies. Heed verbal and written instructions. * * * See caution instructions in machine manual."

On the day of the accident, plaintiff was shown how to operate the machine. During the course of the day, plaintiff saw the metal become caught in the die many times. When this occurred, he would quickly reach in and remove the metal. However, plaintiff would keep the treadle depressed which caused the ram to cycle continuously while he was removing the damaged metal. Plaintiff had been instructed to release the treadle after each bending operation. At approximately 2 p.m. that day, when plaintiff reached in to remove a piece of metal, the ram came down severing three fingers on his left hand.

During the course of the trial, plaintiff learned that a list was compiled in 1975 of the types of Verson machines on which injuries occurred, the nature of the injuries, and the cause of such injuries. In light of this, plaintiff represented to the court that defendant was not complying with discovery. Plaintiff requested an opportunity to depose defendant's president concerning these accidents and review all defendant's files involving claims of injury. Although both parties desired to allow the trial to continue its course, plaintiff requested that he have the right to reopen his case in the event that additional information is discovered regarding any prior accidents. The court granted these requests and plaintiff rested his case.

The deposition of defendant's president revealed he had thrown out two "Product Reliability" files. The president testified that the files contained unrelated information and made no mention of prior accidents or the 1975 list of injuries. One of the files was retrieved from the office waste basket. It was determined that the information contained in that file was not in the request to produce.

After defendant completed its case-in-chief, plaintiff reopened his case. The jury heard testimony from defendant's president and two other employees testifying as adverse witnesses. This testimony showed that each made a search for the 1975 list; however, the list was not among the company's records.

The jury found for defendant. The judge denied plaintiff's post-trial motions. This appeal followed.

The issues to be determined in this appeal are: (1) whether the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence in finding for defendant; (2) whether due process was obstructed by defendant's alleged failure to produce information; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a life-sized sketch of the machine to go to the jury room; and (4) whether remarks of counsel prejudiced plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

I.

A strict products liability case is established upon proof that plaintiff's injuries resulted from a defect or condition in the product which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and the defect or condition existed when the product left the manufacturer's control. Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182.

Findings of a jury cannot be disturbed by a reviewing court unless they are clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Spankroy v. Alesky (1st Dist.1977), 45 Ill.App.3d 432, 439, 4 Ill.Dec. 126, 359 N.E.2d 1078.) When considering whether the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee. (Ford v. City of Chicago (1st Dist.1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 408, 412, 87 Ill.Dec. 240, 476 N.E.2d 1232.) Therefore, in determining whether this jury's verdict of no liability was against the manifest weight of the evidence, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant.

A. SAFETY DEVICE

Plaintiff urges that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence where it was undisputed that the machine was delivered by defendant absent any safety devices at the point of operation. He asserts that this absence in itself constitutes a defect.

A manufacturer is required to adopt any and all devices, the absence of which make his product unreasonably dangerous. (Stanfield v. Medalist, Inc. (2d Dist.1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 635, 340 N.E.2d 276.) However, this court has held that "[t]he multifunctional machine is not defective and therefore not unreasonably dangerous merely because of the absence of all the varied safety devices which might or might not be required for its safe operation. The essential element of reasonability cannot be disregarded." Rios v. Niagara Machine and Tool Works (1st Dist.1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 739, 746, 299 N.E.2d 86, aff'd, 59 Ill.2d 79, 319 N.E.2d 232.

In Rios, it was undisputed that the machine was sold without a safety device. The court stated that although certain operations of this machine required the operator to place his hands in the danger zone, this was not a defect because the machine did not fail to perform in a manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function. The court stated that "to extend strict liability to that situation would place the manufacturers in the impossible position of being compelled to furnish a number of different safety devices covering every conceivable type of * * * operation." 12 Ill.App.3d 739, 745, 299 N.E.2d 86.

In the case at bar, plaintiff alleged that the machine was defective for lack of a point of operation safety device at the time of manufacture. The evidence revealed that the machine was a power component of a manufacturing system and it was sold without dies and had no point of operation to be guarded against. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence in support of the proposition that the machine was unreasonably dangerous for lack of a point of operation device at the time of sale. There was credible evidence from which the jury could conclude that the machine could not be equipped with a safety device without a point of operation. Therefore, the verdict for defendant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

B. MACHINE DESIGN

Plaintiff also argues that the jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence in that evidence was presented proving a design defect rendering the machine unreasonably dangerous.

A jury verdict should not be set aside merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences and conclusions from conflicting testimony. (Turner v. Chicago Transit Authority (1st Dist.1984...