Dunson v. S. A. Allen, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 49786,49786 |
| Parties | Henry DUNSON v. S. A. ALLEN, INC. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Holcomb, Dunbar, Connell, Merkel, Tollison & Khayat, Jane M. Wilbourn, Charles M. Merkel, Clarksdale, for appellant.
Upshaw, Dale, Dorizas & Calhoun, Tom P. Calhoun, III, Greenwood, for appellee.
Before INZER, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.
This case involves the question of whether the manufacturer of a product can be held strictly liable in tort when such product is intended to be used only in conjunction with a second product and when so combined, the combination of the two is unreasonably dangerous and could only be remedied by changes or adjustments to the second product. We hold that it can be held liable.
Appellant, Henry Dunson, brought suit in the Circuit Court of Washington County against J. I. Case Company, G & G Pulpwood Company, S. A. Allen, Inc., and the Ayres Company seeking to recover damages for the personal injury resulting from the operation of a piece of equipment used to cut pulpwood. During the course of the trial, a nonsuit was taken as a result of a settlement with J. I. Case and Ayres Company, and the trial proceeded against the defendant S. A. Allen, Inc. The record is silent as to the disposition of the suit against G & G Pulpwood Company.
The proof on behalf of the plaintiff in this case established that Dunson was severely injured on November 2, 1973, while operating a Case Uniloader equipped with a plantation thinning shear manufactured by S. A. Allen, Inc. The Allen Plantation Thinning Shear is an attachment used in the wood industry for cutting trees. It has a pair of sharp knives used to cut the trees and a pair of claws or grasps which hold the tree while it is being lifted and carried to be stacked with trees already cut. The cutting knives and the claws are operated by means of hydraulic connections between the Allen shear and the equipment with which it is being used.
The particular Allen shear involved in this case was designed by Allen and was especially adapted by it through special mounts and hydraulic hose connections for use with the Case Uniloader. As manufactured the shear could not be used with any other type of tractor. When the Allen shear is in use its knives and claws are opened or closed by the operation of a see-saw type pedal inside the Case Uniloader. This pedal can be pressed either forward or backward to open or close the knives and claws. The pedal activates the shear by means of a hydraulic hose connection between the Case Uniloader and the Allen shear.
On the day of the accident, Dunson was operating a Case Uniloader equipped with an Allen shear to cut and stack trees. He had just cut a tree and started toward the pile with the tree and had traveled some ten or fifteen feet when suddenly the claws of the shear opened and released the tree. The top part of the tree became entangled with the tops of surrounding trees and the base or bottom of the severed tree came backwards into the front of the unshielded Case Uniloader where it fell on Dunson, pinning him in the cab and crushing his right leg.
S. A. Allen, Inc. had manufactured this particular type shear to be used with a Case Uniloader and had tested it in connection with a Uniloader. In testing the shear in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michalko v. Cooke Color and Chemical Corp.
...F.Supp. at 985: Pust, 583 P.2d at 281-82; Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188 (1965); Dunson v. S. A. Allen, Inc., 355 So.2d 77, 78-79 (Miss.1978); Burbage v. Boiler Engineering and Supply Co., 433 Pa. 319, 249 A.2d 563, 566 In this case the trial court was mistake......
-
Johnson v. William C. Ellis & Sons Iron Works, Inc.
...courts have considered the liability standards that we are urged by the plaintiffs to adopt and expand. See Dunson v. S. A. Allen, Inc., Miss.1978, 355 So.2d 77; Hamilton Fixture Co. v. Anderson, Miss.1973, 285 So.2d 744; Thompson v. Reily, Miss.1968, 211 So.2d 537; State Stove and Manufact......
-
Toliver v. General Motors Corp., 55647
...did not function in accord with its intended purpose and the property of the plaintiffs was injured thereby." Id. In Dunson v. S.A. Allen, Inc., 355 So.2d 77 (Miss.1978), the dangerous instrumentality at issue was a thinning shear used for cutting trees. The shear had no manufacturing defec......
-
Satcher v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...is reasonably safe is a flexible one and to be determined by the facts of each case. Toliver supra at 217 citing Dunson v. S.A. Allen, Inc., 355 So.2d 77 (Miss.1978). It is question of fact whether the particular article involved was reasonably safe when it left the control of the manufactu......