Erazo v. SCM Grp. N. Am. & Wurth Baer Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-2386 (RRM) (RER) |
| Parties | GILDARDO ERAZO and ROSALBA ERAZO MONTANA, Plaintiffs, v. SCM GROUP NORTH AMERICA and WURTH BAER SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On February 6, 2013, plaintiff Gildardo Erazo - a New York carpenter with decades of experience operating table saws - was injured when his left hand contacted the still-spinning circular blade of an SCM model Si350n Sliding Table Saw (the "Saw"), marketed by defendant SCM Group North America, Inc. ("SCM" or "Defendant"), a Georgia corporation. On January 25, 2016, Erazo and his wife, Rosalba Erazo Montana ("Montana"), commenced an action against SCM and an Illinois corporation, Wurth Baer Supply Company, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, alleging negligence, strict product liability, breach of implied warranties and loss of consortium. That action was subsequently removed to this Court on diversity grounds.
After completing fact discovery and deposing plaintiffs' expert, Darry Robert Holt, about his eight-page report dated May 11, 2017, SCM served plaintiffs with two motions: 1) a motion for summary judgment and 2) a motion to exclude the report and testimony of plaintiffs' expert. As part of their opposition to the motions, plaintiffs filed an 18-page affidavit from Holt which expresses opinions and references scholarly works that were not discussed or listed in his report. Accordingly, along with its replies, SCM filed a third motion, seeking to strike Holt's affidavit in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, SCM's motions to exclude Holt's report and testimony and the motion to strike Holt's affidavit are granted in part and denied in part, SCM's motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, and this action is dismissed.
Unless otherwise indicated, the facts contained in this Section I are not in dispute. The Saw is a large industrial woodworking machine used in the production of cabinets and other furniture. . Plaintiffs' expert succinctly describes the Saw as:
a woodworking tool comprised of a motor-driven circular saw blade, adjustable in height, projecting through a slot in a sliding table upon which boards are rested and manipulated as cuts as made. The saw is equipped with a rip fence aligned parallel to the blade to adjust the width of a rip cut and guide the workpiece. The saw is equipped with an over-arm hood guard which can be rotated into position over the blade and adjusted vertically to accept the workpiece. The saw is also equipped with a riving knife which can be attached beyond the blade rear and which moves in concert with the blade arbor.
Expert Report of Darry Robert Holt dated May 11, 2017 ("Holt's Report") (Doc. No. 35-8), p. 3.
Photographs of the Saw are contained both in the Saw's "Operation and Maintenance" manual ("Manual") (attached to Pl. 56.1 Stat. as Ex. 4) (Doc. No. 39-4), and the Affidavit of Jonathan Bagby, a service team leader for SCM (Doc. No. 35-4). In addition, the Manual contains diagrams of the Saw and a description of its features. Since a basic understanding of the machine is essential to understanding the issues herein, the Court will describe it in more detail.
First, the sliding metal table is long and thin and can be manually pushed along a track which sits atop a long, thin cabinet. There are two handwheels built into the center of the long side of the cabinet facing the operator; the one on the left raises and lowers the blade, while the one on the right controls the pitch or tilt of the blade. To the right of the handwheels is a "control board," which has buttons to start and stop the Saw's motor, as well as an "emergency button" for use "[i]n case of danger." Manual, p. 3.2. According to the Manual, "if you press the emergency button, any function of the machine is locked." Id.
The circular saw blade (the "Blade") is parallel to the sliding table and sits directly across the sliding table from the handwheel that raises and lowers the Blade. Beyond the Blade is the "rip fence" - a long barrier that is a few inches high and can be moved towards or away from the Blade, which is parallel to it.1 At the rear of the Saw is a stanchion which supports an "over-arm" - a swinging horizontal arm which extends towards the front of the Saw and supports the "hood guard," which is connected to it.
The hood guard (the "Guard") is a shark-fin shaped, transparent sleeve that fits over the Blade. The top of the Guard connects to the over-arm; the bottom features some wooden trim around the slot which accommodates the blade. There is a red handle at the front of the Guard which enables the operator to position it above the workpiece. According to Holt, it is "adjustable ... to any height ... within reason," so that it can be lowered just above the thickness of the material being cut. (Deposition of Darry Robert Holt ("Holt Dep.") p. 59). When lowered in this manner, it creates a barrier on all sides that prevents the operator's hands from contacting the Blade, so long as the workpiece - the material being cut - is there. (Id., pp. 59-60).
The Saw also features a riving knife - a thin, curved piece of metal mounted just behind the Blade. The curve on the edge of the riving knife closest to the Blade is roughly the same diameter as the Blade itself and, according to the Manual, the gap between the riving knife and the Blade should be 3-4 millimeters. (Manual, p. 4.6). As Holt's Report explains, the purpose of the riving knife is twofold. First, it creates a "barrier to personnel blade contact from the rear." (Holt's Report, p. 3). Second, it denies "access of the workpiece to the rear teeth of the blade to prevent kickbacks." (Id.).
A "kickback" occurs when the workpiece "is, for lack of a better word, kicked back" in the direction from which it was fed into the Blade. (Deposition of Jonathan Glenn Bagby ("Bagby Dep."), p. 62). According to Holt, kickbacks can be caused by the "kerf" - i.e., the slit made by the saw - "closing in on the blade, or the lifting force of the blade teeth on the side or underside of the workpiece." (Affidavit of Darry Robert Holt ("Holt Aff."), ¶ 13). The riving knife keeps the kerf open and thus serves to "minimize the possibility of a kickback ... resulting from the kerf closing on the back of the blade." (Id., ¶ 5).
The Saw can accommodate Blades of diameters ranging from 250 to 350 millimeters. (Manual, p. 1.16). Accordingly, the Saw comes equipped with two riving knives: one for use with a 250-millimeter Blade and one for use with Blades having diameters of 300 to 315 millimeters. (Manual, p. 4.7). To remove a riving knife, one pulls back the sliding table, lifts two hooks or releases on a side guard covering the arbor holding the riving knife, uses a wrench to loosen a nut that holds the riving knife in place, and pulls the riving knife off a threaded bolt. (Deposition of Jack E. Hyde, Jr. ("Hyde Dep."), p. 88; see Deposition of Gildardo Erazo ("Erazo Dep."), pp. 103-04, and Manual, pp. 4.4-4.6). To install a new riving knife, one places the new knife on the bolt, tightens the nut, closes the side guard and pushes the sliding table back intoplace. (Hyde Dep., p. 88). Defendant's expert, Jack E. Hyde, Jr., states that this entire process "should take less than a minute," (id.), while plaintiffs' expert, Holt, estimates that it took him "probably a couple minutes." (Holt Dep., p. 62).
At the time of his accident in February 2013, Mr. Erazo was 59 years old, had been a carpenter most of his life, and had operated at least five different table saws. (Id., pp. 8, 225). When he was born, his father owned a carpentry shop in Cali, Colombia, which had two table saws: a large one which Erazo's father had constructed himself and a smaller one, the manufacturer of which Erazo could no longer recall. (Id., pp. 16-17; Erazo Aff., ¶ 3). Erazo spent time in the shop as a boy, so he learned at a very early age that he could be seriously injured if his hand contacted an operating saw blade. (Erazo Dep., pp. 16, 18). However, neither of the table saws was equipped with a blade guard or riving knife, so he did not learn about these safety devices from his father. (Erazo Dep., p. 19; Erazo Aff., ¶ 3). Indeed, when instructing Erazo about safety, the father instructed Erazo only "[t]o be very careful with the saws." (Erazo Dep., p. 18).
After graduating from high school in 1975 and studying for a year at the University Santiago di Cali, Erazo spent as many as ten years working in his father's shop. (Erazo Dep., pp. 12, 23). He became a machine operator in 1980 and spent three or four years operating the two table saws. (Erazo Dep., pp. 16 17). During his tenure in the shop, he saw kickbacks occur "many times" and experienced several himself: approximately five or six while using the large saw and two while using the smaller one. (Erazo Dep., pp. 20, 40). Erazo did not understand why or how a kickback occurred and his father never explained it. (Erazo Aff., ¶ 5). However,his father told him what to do in the event of a kickback: "move the wood back off the blade and hold the trailing edge very tightly to control the wood." (Id.).
In 1986, Erazo - who already considered himself an experienced carpenter - emigrated to the United States. (Erazo Dep., pp. 9, 38). Later that year, he found a job at Petrucelli's carpentry shop on 37th Avenue in Flushing, Queens, assembling furniture. (Id., pp. 34-35). Within two or three months, he became a machine operator there, cutting wood with a table saw. (Id., p. 35). That table saw resembled the large one he had operated in Colombia: it had a wooden cabinet and table...
To continue reading
Request your trial