Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Industrial Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-84-1478,C0-84-1478 |
| Citation | 365 N.W.2d 275 |
| Parties | FARMERS UNION GRAIN TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC CO., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to allow appellant's rebuttal testimony when the evidence was unnecessary in appellant's prima facie case, related to a critical issue, and was highly probative.
John P. Lommen, Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen, Nelson, Sullivan & Cole, Minneapolis, Robert R. Reeder, Eugene J. Maginnis, Cozen, Begier & O'Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Paul A. Joyce, Jr., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by FORSBERG, P.J., and PARKER and LANSING, JJ.
The Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association (GTA) appeals from judgment entered after a jury determined that Industrial Electric was negligent in the installation and repair of an electrical system, but that its negligence did not cause an explosion at the grain terminal. GTA contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow its expert to give testimony rebutting Industrial Electric's theory of causation and in allowing an unqualified expert for Industrial Electric to give an opinion as to causation. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
GTA operates a grain terminal in St. Paul, where an explosion occurred on June 10, 1980, causing $1.6 million in property damage. GTA sued three parties who had been involved in the expansion of the terminal about a year before the explosion, alleging negligent design, installation, and repair of the electrical and dust control systems. Two parties settled before trial, leaving Industrial Electric as the only defendant. The parties stipulated as to damages, so the only issues at trial were negligence and causation.
GTA contended that Industrial Electric had installed the new electrical system so that too many motor control wires ran through a single conduit in each of three "pull boxes" located in a tunnel connecting the hopper area (where grain was dumped) to the elevator (where grain was stored). A conveyor belt runs from the hopper through the tunnel to what is called a "leg," which is a vertical, enclosed conveyor that transfers the grain to the top of the elevator.
There was conflicting testimony at trial as to whether the system as installed violated the electrical code. However, GTA presented evidence that within 18 months of installation three short-circuits occurred in the tunnel. It contacted Industrial Electric and asked for a new wiring job to prevent the shorts.
The day before the explosion, an electrician from Industrial Electric went to the terminal to examine the system. He shut off the power in the tunnel for most of the time he was there examining the system. He removed the pull box covers in order to inspect the wiring. Testimony at trial showed that the covers are designed to be air-tight to prevent any contact between sparks and grain dust. He did not replace the covers on the pull boxes before he left.
The next day he returned and was joined by two other electricians who were to help him replace the wiring. The terminal was operating normally; grain was being dumped into the hopper and carried through the tunnel on the conveyor belt. The electrician turned on the power so the tunnel would be lighted while he explained the planned work. After they walked through the tunnel the three men left the area for a coffee break. The electrician did not turn off the power until after the explosion, which occurred within half an hour.
GTA's theory is that an electrical arc occurred in one of the pull boxes while the cover was off and while the power was on, which ignited grain dust in the tunnel. Industrial Electric does not deny that the explosion occurred in that tunnel, but contends that an overheated nine-inch drift pin inside the leg (the vertical conveyor at the end of the tunnel) caused the explosion. Its theory was that GTA negligently allowed the metal buckets inside the leg to rub continually against the drift pin, which ignited the dust enclosed within the leg. The pull box and the leg were approximately 40 feet apart.
The day after the explosion, two experts from a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, Charles Kauffman and Robert Hubbard, were sent to investigate the explosion. Kauffman has a master's degree in physics and a Ph.D. in aerospace science. His specialty area is the study of explosions. He had personally investigated 12 grain terminal explosions. Hubbard was a vice president of Cargill and manager of operations for its grain division. His area of expertise was maintenance of the physical plant. He had participated in studies of grain terminal explosions and given talks on dust control and explosion prevention.
At trial Charles Kauffman testified, based on his analysis of the explosion pattern, that the explosion must have occurred when an electrical arc in pull box # 2 ignited grain dust in the tunnel. Pull box # 2 was located a few feet from the hopper area. There was no direct evidence that an arc had occurred, but Kauffman said that was the only hypothesis consistent with the damage pattern. Robert Hubbard testified that the explosion occurred because of the overheated drift pin. In addition, the court allowed Terry Mueller, a State OSHA inspector, to testify that the explosion was caused by the drift pin.
GTA's case-in-chief was directed solely at its theory that an arc in the pull box caused the explosion. Kauffman testified generally that an explosion in the area of the leg was not consistent with the damage pattern. The words "drift pin" were never mentioned in his testimony either on direct or cross-examination.
After the defense called Hubbard to testify about the drift pin theory, GTA called Kauffman as a rebuttal witness. Kauffman was prepared to testify that, in his opinion, the drift pin could not have caused the explosion because it was not hot enough or large...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines, of Avco Corp.
...flow, Kedrowski's counsel had the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence but did not do so. See Farmers Union Grain Terminal v. Indus. Elec. Co., 365 N.W.2d 275, 277 (Minn. App. 1985) (defining "rebuttal evidence" as evidence that "explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant's evidenc......
-
Schrader v. Tjarks
...evidence. Its purpose is to cut down defendant's case and not merely to confirm that of the plaintiffs." Farmers U. Grain Term. v. Industrial Elec., 365 N.W.2d 275, 277 (Minn.App.1985) (citation omitted). "Rebuttal is appropriate only when the defense injects a new matter or new facts." Pop......
-
Sumstad v. Wilson, No. A08-0019 (Minn. App. 1/27/2009)
...shown). "What is proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the court." Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Indus. Elec. Co., 365 N.W.2d 275, 277 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. June 14, Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by admit......
-
Riley Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Shuck
...party has a right to call witnesses to rebut an opponent's testimony, citing this court's opinion in Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Indus. Elec. Co., 365 N.W.2d 275 (Minn.App. 1985), review denied (Minn. June 14, 1985).1 In Farmers Union, we noted that "[w]hat is proper rebuttal evid......