Chaffee v. Clark Equipment Co.

• Citation: 480 N.E.2d 236
• Decision Date: 16 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 3-1283A401,3-1283A401
• Parties: Lee Allen CHAFFEE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 236

480 N.E.2d 236

Lee Allen CHAFFEE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 3-1283A401.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

July 16, 1985.

Robert F. Gonderman, Sr., Gonderman Law Offices, P.C., South Bend, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Timothy J. Walsh, Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates, P.C., South Bend, for defendant-appellee Clark Equipment Co.

R. Kent Rowe, Edmond W. Foley, Rowe & Laderer, South Bend, for appellees Georgetown Steel Corp. and Joseph Etheridge.

GARRARD, Judge.

Lee and Carla Chaffee (Chaffee) appeal from a negative judgment in their action to recover for injuries sustained by Lee while operating a forklift truck manufactured by Clark Equipment Company (Clark). At the time he was engaged in unloading steel coils from a truck owned by Georgetown Steel Company (Georgetown).

The evidence disclosed that Chaffee, an experienced forklift operator, and another employee were to unload the steel coils. Chaffee drove his forklift up onto the truck bed. The coil which Chaffee started to lift was attached to another coil and this required Chaffee to raise the coil higher than usual into the air to dislodge it from the other one. With the coil high in the air Chaffee started to back up, hit some loose gravel which had accumulated on the truck bed, and was thrown to the ground when the left wheel of the forklift broke through the truck bed. The forklift landed on Chaffee's leg causing severe injury.

From past experience and from incidents in which others had been injured, Chaffee knew that it was dangerous to drive up onto a truck bed with a forklift. Truck beds frequently had holes in them and steel plates were available to place over the holes to prevent a forklift from breaking through and rolling off the side. Even though no steel plates covered Georgetown's truck bed and even though Chaffee did not examine the truck bed, he drove up onto it since his co-worker had done so with no apparent difficulty. Chaffee testified that his awareness that the weight of the coil would place a greater weight upon the left wheel of the forklift did not warn him that such a weight would produce a dangerous imbalance, causing a fall.

Chaffee subsequently brought suit against Georgetown and Clark. A comprehensive pretrial order was entered and the case was tried to a jury. The claim against Georgetown was predicated on negligence; that against Clark upon a manufacturer's strict liability in tort.

Trial of the case consumed a week and nearly two thousand pages of record were generated. The jury returned a verdict for both defendants and Chaffee appeals asserting seventeen errors concerning the admission and exclusion of certain evidence and the court's final instructions.

Chaffee first contends the court erred in giving the following instruction:

"Georgetown Steel Corporation is not an insurer or guarantor of the safety of all those who have occasion to be in, upon or around vehicles owned or used by Georgetown Steel Corporation. There is no obligation on the part of such owner or user of equipment to protect a person against dangers which are known to him, or which are so obvious and apparent to him that he may reasonably be expected to discover and avoid them in the exercise of reasonable care for his own safety."

We must commence by expressing disapproval of the instruction.

Where the issue is negligence an instruction advising the jury that the defendant "is not an insurer or guarantor of the safety of [plaintiff]" is ostensibly offered to establish by contrast that the plaintiff must establish a failure to use reasonable care.

Such instructions have been properly refused on the ground that insurer/guarantor status is outside the issues of the case in question. Meadowlark Farms, Inc. v. Warken (1978), 176 Ind.App. 437, 376 N.E.2d 122, 136. In addition, we suspect a concern on the part of the court that the language has some tendency to confuse the jury into thinking that a plaintiff must show something other than simply the absence of ordinary care on the part of a defendant. Such is the possibility where words of contrast are not, in fact, opposing equivalents.

Nevertheless, where the jury has been otherwise fully instructed, our Supreme Court has determined that giving an instruction containing the insurer/guarantor language is not reversible error. Conder v. Hull Lift Truck, Inc. (1982), Ind., 435 N.E.2d 10, 16-17.

Moreover, we disagree with the dissent's perception that this language creates a "pure-accident" instruction. ¹ It does not, and to the extent that Dunlap v. Goldwin (1981), Ind.App., 425 N.E.2d 724 supports the dissenting view, we believe Dunlap to be in error.

Here, as the trial judge indicated to the parties, there was some justification in contrasting for the jury the requirements necessary to the negligence theory against Georgetown from the strict liability requirements applicable to Clark. We conclude giving the instruction was not reversible error. Conder, supra.

Chaffee next complains of a companion instruction which advised the jury that the fact the forklift broke through and fell did not, standing alone, establish negligence and if the jury determined that the flatbed was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, the plaintiffs also had the burden of establishing that Georgetown knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the condition in time to have remedied it or warned plaintiff of its existence.

The objection was that this was a "mere accident" instruction and that the requirement that plaintiff prove actual or constructive knowledge in time to remedy, or warn of, the defect was contrary to law.

We do not agree that the instruction was a "mere accident" instruction. Compare Miller v. Alvey (1965), 246 Ind. 560, 207 N.E.2d 633. The essence of such instructions is to tell the jury that if they find the injuries occurred from a mere, pure, etc. "accident" the plaintiff may not recover. Such instructions are confusing and misleading because the term "accident" does not necessarily preclude fault or negligence. 207 N.E.2d 636. ² The challenged instruction is not of that genre.

In addition, we do not agree with Chaffee's assertion that the requirement of actual or constructive knowledge was contrary to law. Such knowledge is an element in determining the failure to exercise reasonable care in a negligence claim, and indeed is an element in Chaffee's own tendered instruction No. 9 which was given by the court. See, e.g., Hunsberger v. Wyman (1966), 247 Ind. 369, 216 N.E.2d 345. Here, when construed together with the other instructions given by the court they fairly instructed the jury and did not deny Chaffee consideration of his contentions.

Georgetown's tendered instruction No. 3, given by the court, was not a "mere accident" instruction, as objected to by Chaffee. It helped define reasonable care, and when construed with the other final instructions properly advised the jury.

Georgetown's instruction No. 6 advised the jury that the fact that one or more of the defendants was a corporation while the plaintiff was an individual should not influence them in deciding the case; they should weigh the evidence fairly and impartially and apply the law as given by the court. We find no error in giving the instruction.

We need not consider Chaffee's contentions concerning Georgetown's instruction No. 10, since the instruction related to the proper measure of damages. Where the verdict denied liability, error in an instruction on the measure of damages is harmless. Adkins v. Poparad (1943), 222 Ind. 16, 51 N.E.2d 476.

Chaffee next attacks several instructions tendered by Clark and given by the court. He first attacks Clark's tendered instruction No. 7 which concerned the claim of defective design and stated:

"In order to prove the fork-lift truck in question to be defective in its design the plaintiffs have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (a) that the product as designed is incapable of preventing the injury complained of and (b) that there is an alternate design which would have prevented the injury and (c) that the alternate design is feasible."

The language is taken from Lolie v. Ohio Brass Co. (7th Cir.1974), 502 F.2d 741 where the court was considering the items of proof necessary in a defective design case. It is, however, a familiar proposition that a statement is not an appropriate instruction for a jury merely because it has been made in an opinion of one of the appellate courts. Drollinger v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 5, 408 N.E.2d 1228; Jacks v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 611, 394 N.E.2d 166.

The problem with the first element set forth in the instruction (that the product as designed is incapable of preventing the injury), which is the one complained of on appeal, is that it appears to require the plaintiff to prove a negative. As such, the instruction is confusing. What must a plaintiff do to establish that the product is "incapable of preventing the injury complained of?" Upon reflection we must conclude that showing the injury occurred is all that is necessary. Thus, contrary to Chaffee's assertion the statement is not contrary to law, although it could certainly have been rejected for its confusing character.

However, on appeal Chaffee is limited to the objection he posed at trial. State v. Edgman (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 1091. The mere fact that a tendered instruction might be properly refused by the trial court does not mean that reversible error is committed in the giving of such an instruction. For the giving of such an instruction to constitute reversible error, the appellant must establish that he preserved the potential error and that he was likely harmed in the outcome of the case because the instruction was given. No such showing has been made concerning this instruction.

Chaffee-also complains of three other instructions given by ...