Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak
| Decision Date | 08 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–0042,13–0042 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.3d 1 |
| Parties | Genie Industries, Inc., Petitioner, v. Ricky Matak, Belinda Matak and Misty Sonnier, as Representative of the Estate of Walter Pete Logan Matak, Deceased, Respondents |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Clifford L. Harrison, Stephan Daniel Selinidis, Harrison Bettis Staff McFarland & Weems, LLP, Constance H. Pfeiffer, Beck Redden LLP, Houston TX, for Petitioner.
Edward D. Fisher, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, James Erick Payne, Jennifer Job, Provost Umprey Law Firm L.L.P., Beaumont TX, for Respondents.
Roger W. Hughes, Adams & Graham, L.L.P., Harlingen TX, Jane M. N. Webre, Scott Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P., Austin TX, for Amicus Curiae.
A product manufacturer is not liable for a design defect unless a safer alternative design exists and the defect renders the product unreasonably dangerous—that is, its risks outweigh its utility.1 The issue is usually one of fact for the jury but may nevertheless be a legal one when the evidence is such that reasonable minds cannot differ on the risk-utility balancing considerations.2
In this case, the users of an aerial lift supporting a worker 40' in the air attempted to move the machine. Signs on the machine and instructions in the user manual warned of the obvious danger: the machine would tip over and the worker would fall to the ground. And that is what happened. So obvious was the danger that although over 100,000 lifts of the same general model have been sold all over the world, the jury was provided with evidence of only three similar accidents involving similar AWP lifts over the past decade—none of which involved the intentional destabilization of a fully-extended 40' lift.3 The lift cannot be said in any sense to be unreasonably dangerous.
The jury reached a different conclusion. The respective roles of courts and juries must be carefully guarded. The right to trial by jury in civil cases is constitutionally protected because we have, as a polity, determined to lay the resolution of factual disputes at the feet of our peers. But when the facts admit of only one reasonable conclusion, it is the rule of law that must supply the decision, lest jurors be given the very power from which they are intended to protect us, deciding for whatever reasons seem good to them who should and should not prevail.
As we will explain in detail, fully mindful of the respect due the verdict of the jury, our careful review of the record in this case has revealed little evidence of a safer alternative design for the product at issue, and no evidence that the product is unreasonably dangerous. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals4 and render judgment for Petitioner Genie Industries, Inc.
Genie Industries, Inc., manufactures and sells a wide variety of aerial lifts throughout the world. An aerial lift is used to raise a worker on a platform to reach the ceilings of tall buildings or other high places. One of these lifts is the Aerial Work Platform–40' SuperSeries, also known as the AWP–40S, pictured here.
The base of the AWP–40S is small, only about 29? x 55?>—narrower than a standard door—and sits on wheels. A vertical, telescoping mast is mounted on the base. An enclosed platform to hold a worker is attached to the top of the mast. A motor extends the mast, raising the platform up to 40' in the air, thus allowing a worker on the platform to reach objects as high as 45–46' above the ground. The AWP–40S is designed to be lightweight and portable. Though the lift weighs roughly 1,000 pounds, it can be rolled around, set up, and operated by a single person. The lift is well-suited for indoor work not accessible by big, heavy machinery. It can pass through ordinary doorways and can be used in tight spaces.
The base of the AWP–40S is too small to support a worker on the platform without tipping over even when the platform is not fully elevated. Before elevating the platform, the machine must be stabilized using outriggers attached to each of the four comers of the base. Each outrigger extends outward diagonally about 3' from the base. At the end of each outrigger is a leveling jack that can be adjusted up or down so that the outrigger is firmly pressed against the floor. The outriggers increase the lift's footprint and its stability, preventing it from tipping over. When the work is done and the mast lowered, the outriggers can be removed to allow the lift to pass through narrow areas. The removable outriggers contribute to the lift's compact design, which is one of its main selling points.
An electromechanical interlock on the lift prevents the platform from being elevated unless all the outriggers are in place and the leveling jacks pressed against the ground. But if the lift becomes destabilized while elevated, it continues to function. Four green lights signal the proper deployment of the outriggers. Several signs on the lift warn users not to release the lift's outriggers while it is in use. One sign, located at eye level on the machine, displays an image of a man pushing the lift while elevated and in use, and states:
DANGER: Tip-over hazard. Attempting to move the machine with the platform raised will tip the machine over and cause death or serious injury.
A warning in the lift's manual states: “Do not adjust or remove the outriggers while the platform is occupied or raised.” Even without these warnings, the danger is obvious.
Genie has sold more than 100,000 of its AWP–series lifts worldwide. The few, comparable lifts that are sold on the market are virtually identical to Genie's AWP–40S. The lift's design is governed by and complies with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. The AWP–40S also complies with both the non-mandatory American National Standards Institute standards and, due to the size of Genie's world market share, the national standards in Canada, Europe, and Australia. Out of the millions of times Genie's AWP–series lifts have been used, there are apparently only three reported accidents like the one in issue.5
The Cathedral in the Pines Church in Beaumont has an AWP–40S that it uses to reach the ceilings of its buildings. The Church hired Gulf Coast Electric to run fiber optic cable in the ceilings and allowed Gulf Coast's employees, James Boggan and Walter Matak, to use the lift. Initially, they used the lift as instructed. They positioned the lift, deployed the outriggers, and then raised the platform with Matak standing on it. Each time they needed to reposition the lift to reach a different area, they lowered the platform and Matak stepped down. They then raised the leveling jacks, rolled the lift to another location, and redeployed the outriggers.
A church employee watching them work, John Adams, suggested the work would go faster if Matak were not lowered each time the lift was moved. With Matak still elevated, the jacks could be raised a few inches, just enough to allow the lift to roll, then re-lowered. When Boggan expressed reservations about this method, Adams reassured him that he and the other church employees did it “all the time.” Actually, what they had done all the time was move the lift with the worker still on the platform, but not with the platform fully raised.
Boggan attempted to follow Adams's suggestion, but after he raised two of the leveling jacks only a few inches, the lift—with Matak still on the platform extended to its full 40' height—suddenly tipped over and crashed to the floor. Matak died of massive injuries to his head
, and this action for wrongful death and survivor damages ensued.
The jury found that a design defect in the AWP–40S caused the accident. The jury was instructed as follows:
The jury apportioned responsibility 55% to Genie, 20% to the Church, 20% to Gulf Coast, and 5% to Matak. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and Genie appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's design defect finding.6
We granted Genie's petition for review.7
A product is unreasonably dangerous when its risk outweighs its utility.11 Genie argues that the plaintiffs produced no evidence that a safer alternative design for the AWP–40S existed or that the risk of an accident like Matak's outweighs the lift's utility. In assessing the evidence, we cannot, of course, “substitute [our] judgment for that of the [jury], so long as the evidence falls within [the] zone of reasonable disagreement.”12 But “[w]here reasonable minds cannot differ, the issue is one of law rather than one of fact.”13
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC
...precedent and the applicable standard of review and thereby usurps the jury's role in this case."); Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak , 462 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. 2015) ( Boyd , J., dissenting) ("This record contains at least some evidence that it was both foreseeable and likely that untrained non-pr......
-
Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition Co.
...applies a risk-utility test that looks at whether the manufacturer could have provided a safer alternative design. Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak , 462 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. 2015) ("A safer alternative design is one that would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury, would not s......
-
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Reavis
...existed; and (3) the defect was a producing cause of the injury for which the plaintiff seeks recovery." Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak , 462 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2015) (quoting Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish , 286 S.W.3d 306, 311 (Tex. 2009) ); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 82.005(a). A "p......
-
Simien v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
...at 765 (quoting Casey, 770 F.3d at 330); Goodner v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., 650 F.3d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 2011); Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak, 462 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2015) (citing Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 311 (Tex. 2009)). In his Amended Complaint, Simien alleges that the......