Goldsborough v. Bucyrus Int'l, Inc., 13-1323
| Decision Date | 09 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-1323,13-1323 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | KENNETH GOLDSBOROUGH AND MARY GOLDSBOROUGH, Petitioners v. BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BUCYRUS AMERICA, INC.; BUCYRUS MINING EQUIPMENT, INC.; AND STRUCTURED MINING SYSTEMS, INC., Respondents |
The petitioners herein, Kenneth and Mary Goldsborough ("Mr. and Mrs. Goldsborough"),1 appeal from two orders entered November 15, 2013, by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. By those orders, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the respondents herein, Bucyrus International, Inc.; Bucyrus America, Inc.; and Bucyrus Mining Equipment, Inc. (collectively, "Bucyrus"), and to the respondent herein, Structured Mining Systems, Inc. ("Structured Mining").2 On appeal to this Court, Mr. and Mrs. Goldsborough contend that the circuit court erred by granting the respondents' summary judgment motions because it misapplied the governing law regarding strict liability in West Virginia and failed to recognize that disputed issues of material fact exist so as to preclude summary judgment.
Upon our review of the parties' arguments, the appendix record, and the pertinent authorities, we agree with the petitioners that the circuit court erred by granting the respondents' motions for summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the November 15, 2013, orders of the Kanawha County Circuit Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum decision. In summary, we find that the circuit court failed to recognize that genuine issues of material fact exist in this case so as to render summary judgment improper. Because this case does not present a new or significant issue of law, andfor the reasons set forth herein, we find this case satisfies the "limited circumstances" requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure and is proper for disposition as a memorandum decision.
The instant proceeding originated when Mr. Goldsborough sustained an injury at work on June 27, 2008, while operating a remotely-controlled continuous miner at Wolf Run Mining Company's Sentinel mine.3 The continuous miner was manufactured by Bucyrus, and the continuous miner's remote control operating system was manufactured by Structured Mining. This particular mining equipment was designed to use "teach-learn" technology in which one specific remote control transmitter was activated to work one specific continuous miner machine. At the relevant time, two different continuous miner machines, each operated by their own remote control transmitter, were being used in the pertinent section of the mine.
On the day of his accident, Mr. Goldsborough, a coal miner with thirty-five years of coal mining experience, was using a remote control transmitter to operate its associated continuous miner to mine coal in the Number 3 entryway of the Number 1 section of the mine. A ventilation curtain was hung in the entryway, behind which sat two of Mr. Goldsborough's coworkers who were waiting for him to finish mining that area and move the continuous miner so they could enter and install roof bolts.
While attempting to back the continuous miner away from the entryway, its cutter head became caught on the ventilation curtain. Mr. Goldsborough recalls using the remote control transmitter to turn off power to the continuous miner's cutter heads, hydraulic pump, and tram motors; he reports that he then walked around the miner and between the machine and the wall of the mine to free the entangled ventilation curtain. According to Mr. Goldsborough, after disentangling the ventilation curtain and while walking back to his original position, he felt the continuous miner machine strike him and pin him between the machine and the mine wall. Mr. Goldsborough indicated that he attempted to turn the continuous miner off with its remote control transmitter, but that he was unable to do so because the remote control had become trapped between him and the machine. Coworkers, including those sitting behind the ventilation curtain, heard Mr. Goldsborough's cries for help and eventually freed him. As a result of this incident, Mr. Goldsborough sustained crushing injuries to his left leg and internal organs.
On the day of this incident, investigators from both the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MHSA") and the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training ("WVOMHST") inspected the scene and interviewed Mr. Goldsborough's coworkers. However, during the course of their investigations on June 27, 2008, neither of these agencies retrieved either the computer memory card from the continuous miner machine that Mr. Goldsborough had been operating or the remote control transmitter that he had been using. Three days later, on June 30, 2008, MSHA recovered both the continuous miner's computer memory card and the machine's associated remote control transmitter. While the continuous miner's computer memory card contained other data recorded at and around the time of Mr. Goldsborough's accident, MSHA reported that both the voltage information and "Errors" file records for the relevant time were missing from the machine's memory card.
Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Goldsborough filed the lawsuit giving rise to the instant proceeding against the respondents herein, and additional parties,4 alleging that "the continuous miner moved, without any action by Kenneth Goldsborough, and crushed him against the mine rib causing him severe and permanent injury." In their complaint, the Goldsboroughs asserted claims against the respondents herein for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium. Following discovery, Bucyrus and Structured Mining moved for summary judgment.
By order entered November 15, 2013, the circuit court granted Bucyrus' motion for summary judgment. In so ruling, the circuit court determined that the Goldsboroughs had not presented sufficient evidence, either circumstantial or direct, to prove that the continuous miner machine or its associated remote control transmitter were defective or that the respondents had negligently caused Mr. Goldsborough's injuries. The circuit court also rejected Mr. Goldsborough's breach of warranty claim and his contention that genuine issues of material fact existed so as to preclude summary judgment. Insofar as Mrs. Goldsborough's claim for loss of consortium was derivative of the claims asserted by Mr. Goldsborough, the circuit court found that, because Mr. Goldsborough had not sufficiently proven his claims, Mrs. Goldsborough's claim also must fail.
Employing the same reasoning, the circuit court entered a second order, also on November 15, 2013, awarding summary judgment to Structured Mining. From these adverse rulings, Mr. and Mrs. Goldsborough appeal to this Court.
The instant matter is before this Court on appeal from the circuit court's ordersawarding summary judgment to the respondents herein. Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Thus, "[a] motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law." Syl. pt. 3, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). Where, as here, an appeal is taken from a circuit court's entry of summary judgment, we employ a plenary review: "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syl. pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).
In their appeal to this Court, Mr. and Mrs. Golsborough assign two5 main errors: (1) the circuit court misapplied the law governing strict liability for defective products and (2) the circuit court failed to recognize that there exist genuine issues of material fact so as to preclude summary judgment. Because resolution of the propriety of summary judgment issue will instruct our determination of the strict liability assignment of error, we first will consider whether summary judgment was proper in this case.
Mr. and Mrs. Goldsborough first assign error to the circuit court's conclusion that Bucyrus and Structured Mining were entitled to summary judgment because there did not exist any genuine issues of material fact in this case. Upon our plenary review, we find the circuit court erred in this ruling because the existence of genuine issues of material fact render summary disposition of this case improper. As we previously have held, "[i]f there is no genuine issue as to any material fact summary judgment should be granted but such judgment must be denied if there is a genuine issue as to a material fact." Syl. pt. 4, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (emphasis added).
Roughly stated, a "genuine issue" for purposes of West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) is simply one half of a trialworthy issue, and a genuine issue does not arise unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for that party. The opposing half of a trialworthy issue is present where the non-moving party can point to one or more disputed "material" facts. A material fact is one that has the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law.
Syl. pt. 5, Jividen v. Law, 194 W. Va. 705, 461 S.E.2d 451 (1995). Thus, "[t]he question tobe decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of fact and not how that issue should be determined." Syl. pt. 5, Aetna, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770.
In determining whether such a genuine issue of material fact exists, we also have instructed that all inferences to be drawn from the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial