Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--70,74--70 |
| Citation | 333 N.E.2d 716,30 Ill.App.3d 435 |
| Parties | Victor E. BIEHLER, and Marian D. Biehler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WHITE METAL ROLLING & STAMPING CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, and Sears, Roebuck and Co., a Foreign Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Glenn J. Church, Ltd., Peoria, of counsel, for plaintiffs-appellants.
McConnell, Kennedy, McConnell & Morris, Peoria, for defendants-appellees; William J. Thomas, Peoria, of counsel.
Plaintiffs Victor and Marian Biehler brought this product liability action against defendants White Metal Rolling and Stamping Co. (hereafter called 'White Metal') and Sears, Roebuck and Co. (hereafter called 'Sears') to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the collapse of an allegedly defective aluminum combination ladder. After a jury trial, a verdict was returned for defendants upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiffs' post trial motion was denied. On appeal, plaintiffs contend they were denied a fair trial as a result of defendant's abuse of discovery and because of numerous errors which occurred during trial.
The record shows that plaintiffs purchased from Sears a seven foot combination stepladder manufactured by White Metal. Plaintiffs had seldom used the ladder, and on April 3, 1969, while Victor Biehler was coming down from the third step, the step ladder collapsed and tipped to the right. As a result of the fall, plaintiff sustained multiple fractures of the bones in his left ankle, which caused the left leg to be shorter than the right with a 35 per cent loss of use.
The parties presented conflicting expert testimony regarding the cause of the fall. Plaintiffs' witness, Dr. John McNabb, an engineering professor experienced in stress analysis, testified that, in his opinion, the collapse was caused by defective design in that the front side rails of the ladder was that the front side rails of the ladder were because they were too thin to bear the weight placed on them.
Defendants' expert, Earl Records, was the White Metal engineer chiefly responsible for the design and manufacture of the ladder. He testified that the bottom portion of the front side was designed to move outward when weight was applied to the steps, and therefore it could not have spontaneously buckled inward as indicated by plaintiffs' witness. Defendants' expert further testified that in his opinion the distortion of the right front side rail was caused when the ladder tipped to the right and struck a planter at which time a sudden force was applied to the ladder.
In support of plaintiffs' primary contention, that they were denied a fair trial as a result of defendants' continuing abuse of discovery, reference is made to numerous delays and instances of non-compliance appearing in the record. In fact, defendants in their brief admit: '(I)t is patently obvious that the defendants were delinquent with respect to filing objections to interrogatories, answers to interrogatories and in complying with orders for the production of documents, etc.'
During the three years after, the complaint was filed and before trial, plaintiff served four sets of interrogatories on defendants and filed three motions to produce documents and photographs. These procedures can best be summarized by the following table:
Date Ordered Date of Actual Response
Plaintiffs' Discovery for Response Sears White
--------------------- ------------ ----- -----
Inter. Nos. 1-30 3-12-71, 7-16-71 -------- 8-24-71
11-2-71 1 12-9-71 11-23-71 2
Inter. Nos. 31-50 5-21-71 3, 7-16-71 -------- 8-24-71
11-2-71 1 12-9-71 11-23-71 2
Inter. Nos. 51-58 7-25-72 12-12-72 11-27-72
1st Motion to Produce 9-7-72, 12-1-72 Not in Not in
Record Record
Inter. Nos. 59-105 1-11-73, 3-12-73 Not in 5-11-73
5-23-73 4, 6-7-73 Record
4
2nd Motion to Produce 3-2-73, 5-11-73 5-14-73
5-23-73 5, 6-7-73 7-20-73 6 7-16-73 6
3rd Motion to Produce 5-4-73, 5-23-73 -------- --------
6-7-73, 7-24-73 7-20-73 7-24-73
Int. Nos. 106-115 5-23-73, 6-7-73 7-31-73 7-16-73
7-24-73 4
In order to elicit responses to interrogatories and motions to produce, plaintiffs had to obtain 15 court orders for answers and responses by dates certain. In nearly every case, the answers and responses were filed after the dates ordered. On seven occasions plaintiffs filed motions requesting sanctions against defendants under Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110A, § 219(c). Four of these motions asked for judgment against defendants and other sanctions. No sanctions were imposed until the day trial commenced when the trial judge ruled upon plaintiffs' fourth motion for judgment by stating that he 'would be receptive during this trial, for Plaintiff's desire for specific sanctions' regarding introduction of evidence where discovery of that particular matter had not been fulfilled. We interpret this to mean that, upon a showing by plaintiffs that any evidence sought to be introduced by defendants had not been adequately disclosed in pre-trial discovery, the court would bar the testimony at that time. During the trial defendants sought to introduce testimony concerning the large number of similar ladders manufactured. Upon objection by plaintiffs, the court heard arguments out of the presence of the jury, and sustained the objection. Plaintiffs now urge that this sanction was insufficient.
Plaintiffs contend that the repeated delays by defendants in responding to interrogatories and motions to produce prejudiced plaintiffs in that they were denied adequate time to prepare for trial. For example, Sears filed its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 106--115 on July 31, 1973, the first day of trial, and responses to Motions to Produce were not forthcoming until July 20 and 24, one week before trial commenced, although orders of the court had required earlier compliance.
Plaintiffs also assert that the answers furnished to interrogatories were inadequate and in part erroneous with the result that plaintiffs were unable to prepare adequately some elements of their case. The following instances of insufficient answers are particularly noteworthy.
(1) In its first response to plaintiffs' second motion to produce, White Metal stated that it does not now manufacture any ladders similar to the plaintiffs' ladder. This answer was false; Mr. Records testified during the trial that a substantially similar ladder is still manufactured by White Metal and sold by Sears.
(2) In response to Interrogatories Nos. 33, 34, 97 and 98, and the first, second and third motions to produce, all of which asked for information and documents relating to similar claims for injuries arising out of ladder accidents, defendants failed to disclose two cases involving similar White Metal ladders sold by Sears: the Glenn Smith case pending in Iowa, and the Lifritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. case, 472 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.App.1971). After plaintiffs learned of these two cases and filed additional Interrogatories Nos. 106 to 115, asking for specific information as to those cases by name, to which defendants were ordered to comply by May 23, 1973, and again by June 7 and again by July 24, defendants did not comply until July 16 (White Metal) and July 31 (Sears) which was shortly before trial began on July 31, 1973.
(3) Plaintiffs' third motion to produce asked for photographs and complaints received by defendants in the ten claims disclosed by White Metal in its answer to Interrogatory No. 33, and in any subsequent claims or lawsuits involving similar complaints. Defendants were ordered to comply by May 4, May 23, June 7 and July 24, 1973. Defendants never produced any documents or photographs in response to this motion. On July 24, 1973, White Metal finally answered that it had no photographs or 'complaints which are similar to those alleged in the Complaint herein,' Even though ten similar claims had previously been disclosed in White Metal's supplemental answer to Interrogatory 33. Sears finally answered unresponsively on July 24, 1973, that it 'refers such matters to the manufacturer of the respective products and/or its insurance carrier (previously disclosed to be Allstate Insurance Company) and so maintains no active files concerning the nature and details of claims or lawsuits,' and also stated, since it 'does not index customer complaints by type of product but, rather, by the name of the claimant that it is unable to ascertain whether any . . . complaints similar to those alleged in the Complaint herein were ever made.' We note that Allstate Insurance Company was disclosed as the public liability insurer of White Metal in White Metal's answer to Interrogatory No. 29 filed August 24, 1971, and thus both defendants were insured by Allstate.
(4) Interrogatory 97 asked defendants to furnish additional specific information about complaints from accidents involving similar ladders. Orders were entered requiring defendants to respond by Jan. 11, 1973 and again by March 12, 1973. Sears did not ever respond despite additional orders entered requiring answers by May 23, 1973 and June 7, 1973. White Metal responded on May 11, 1973, '(A)s a result of a move of the corporate office and records from Manhattan to Brooklyn within the recent past, records have been disrupted to the point that it will require at least several months before this Interrogatory can be answered with any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenney v. Liston
...the likelihood that a jury will reduce a plaintiff's award of damages because it knows the plaintiff is already receiving compensation.”). 21.Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 30 Ill.App.3d 435, 444, 333 N.E.2d 716, 723 (1975). 22. Branton, 18 St. Mary's L.J. at 883.See also,......
-
Kenney v. Liston
...award of damages because it knows the plaintiff is already receiving compensation."). 21. Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 30 Ill.App.3d 435, 444, 333 N.E.2d 716, 723 (1975). 22. Branton, 18 St. Mary's L.J. at 883. See also, Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 W.Va. at 446, 3......
-
Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc.
...of the certainty of the need and as to the reasonable value of the services to be rendered.'" Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 30 Ill.App.3d 435, 445, 333 N.E.2d 716 (1975), quoting 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 312 In Terracina, the reviewing court upheld the striking of a doctor'......
-
Buck v. Alton Memorial Hospital, 79-116
... ... ), 12 Ill.2d 231, 236, 145 N.E.2d 588; Biehler v. White Metal Roofing and Stamping Corp. (3rd ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaines , 652 S.W. 2d 600 (Tex. Civ. App. 1983), § 10:750 Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp. , 30 Ill. App. 3d 435, 333 N.E. 2d 716 (1975), § 10:800 Black v. Food Lion Inc. , 171 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1999), § 3:465 Bliss v. Kaplan , 369 Mich. 293, 300 (1963), ......
-
Preparing for Trial and Appeal
...blackboards, enlarged photographs, mock-ups and the like, during your closing. See Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp. , 30 Ill. App. 3d 435, 333 N.E. 2d 716 (1975) (photographs of injuries); Annot., “Admissibility in Evidence of Enlarged Photographs or Photostatic Copies,” 72 A......