DiMeo v. Minster Machine Company
| Decision Date | 08 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 198,Docket 31742.,198 |
| Citation | 388 F.2d 18 |
| Parties | Louis DiMEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The MINSTER MACHINE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Donald F. Keefe, New Haven, Conn., (Tyler, Cooper, Grant, Bowerman & Keefe, New Haven, Conn.), for defendant-appellant.
Kevin T. Gormley, New Haven, Conn., (Gormley & Gormley, New Haven, Conn.), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff was a stamping press operator who had a portion of his left hand severed when a power press manufactured by appellant recycled while he was removing a finished piece from the die. The press, which had been installed about six months before the accident, was operated by placing a part on the lower die of the press, under the ram, and raising both hands head-high to push dual buttons. The press would cycle once, the operator would remove the finished part and insert another and begin the sequence again.
The press should not recycle until the two buttons are again pushed and the operator's hands are nowhere within the working area of the machine. The parties agreed, and the jury found in a special verdict, that an operating valve malfunctioned causing a recycling while the operator's hands were still in the machine. The valve had been purchased by appellant from Ross Operating Valve Co., originally a codefendant in the suit against whom the action was dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff's expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the valve failed because it had been assembled improperly and plaintiff's theory was that appellant had been negligent in failing to detect the defect before incorporating the valve into the press. Appellant claimed that the valve failed because plaintiff's employer neglected to maintain it properly, allowing water and dirt to get into it.
The trial was in the United States District Court of Connecticut on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and Connecticut law is the applicable law. The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $40,000 damages.
On this appeal appellant argues that it was error for the trial judge to charge that the stamping press is a dangerous machine and, as such, requires the highest degree of care in its manufacture. The specific portion of the charge to which appellant objects is the following:
Earlier in the charge, the judge had stated: "You will note under the definition of negligence I have just given you that `reasonable care under the circumstances' is the test" (emphasis by the court). This charge is in conformity with well-settled Connecticut law. Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 47, 130 A. 86 (1925).
Ordinarily the trial judge ought to leave to the jury the determination of what degree of care is called for under the particular circumstances of the case before it. In this case, however, there is no doubt of the extreme danger attendant on a defect in the construction or design of a power press. The elaborate precaution of requiring the simultaneous pressing of two buttons to activate the machine testifies to its manufacturer's awareness of the potential danger to the operator's hands and arms.
Although we are able to find no Connecticut authority directly on point, recent decisions expanding manufacturer's strict liability under the theory found in Section 402A of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dreyer v. Ryder Automotive Carrier Group, Inc.
...in particular, or on the issue of industrial product misuse and operator workplace negligence in general. Compare DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co. 388 F.2d 18, 20 (2d Cir.1968) ( where the challenged expert's opinion permitted by the court was that a design defect, which allowed a power press t......
- Roszak v. Princess Cruises, Inc.
-
Wheeler v. Standard Tool and Manufacturing Co., 69 Civ. 5160.
...Inc., 154 Conn. 549, 227 A.2d 418 (1967); Basko v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 416 F.2d 417 (2nd Cir. 1969); DiMeo v. Minster Machine Company, 388 F.2d 18 (2nd Cir. 1968). Thus, under Connecticut law, i. e., § 402(A) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, it is incumbent on me to determine whether ......
-
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
...we cannot say that Judge Burns abused her discretion in refusing to consider the additional testimony. See DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co., 388 F.2d 18, 20 (2d Cir.1968); Draddy v. Weston Trawling Co., 344 F.2d 945, 946-47 (2d Cir.1965); see also Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777, 782-83 (5......
-
Avoiding product liability claims: how much testing is enough?
...(factor of safety of 1.28 insufficient); Watz, 431 F.2d at 114 (factor of safety of 1.5 insufficient). (18.)181 N.E. 576 (N.Y. 1932). (19.)388 F.2d 18 (2d Cir. (20.)Warner v. Santa Catalina Island Co., 282 P.2d 12, 18 (Cal. 1955). (21.)Watz, 431 F.2d at 116. Contra Tibbetts v. Ford Motor Co......