Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-op

• Decision Date: 03 December 1991
• Docket Number: TRI-LINE,CO-O,WIL-RIC,T,CO-OP,Nos. C4-90-2738,C3-91-5,INC,s. C4-90-2738
• Citation: 478 N.W.2d 515
• Parties: Gerald W. HAHN, Respondent, v.FARMERS, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, Respondents, v. HUTCHINSON, formerly known as Hutchinson Division of Lear Siegler, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Respondent (C4-90-2738) Appellant (C3-91-5), v.FARMERS, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant (C4-90-2738) Respondent (C3-91-5).
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 515

478 N.W.2d 515

Gerald W. HAHN, Respondent, v. TRI-LINE FARMERS CO-OP, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, Respondents, v. HUTCHINSON WIL-RICH, INC., formerly known as Hutchinson

Division of Lear Siegler, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Respondent (C4-90-2738) Appellant (C3-91-5), v. TRI-LINE FARMERS CO-OP, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant

(C4-90-2738) Respondent (C3-91-5).

Nos. C4-90-2738, C3-91-5.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Dec. 3, 1991.

Review Denied Jan. 27, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The rule articulated in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 257 N.W.2d 679 (1979), that a third-party defendant's contribution from plaintiff's employer cannot exceed the total workers' compensation benefits which the employer pays plaintiff, is constitutional as applied to this case.

2. Reallocation under Minn.Stat. Sec. 604.02(2) does not apply to a workers' compensation third-party liability action where the third-party defendant and employer are not jointly liable.

3. Where counsel informed the jury of the effect of its answers on the outcome of a comparative fault case, Minn.R.Civ.P. 49.01 was not violated.

4. Because paragraph three of JIG 130 instructs the jury to consider plaintiff's knowledge of his exposure to danger, the jury instructions when read as a whole, instructed the jury to consider plaintiff's negligence and assumption of risk.

5. The trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that damages are non-taxable.

6. The "day in the life" videotape of a paraplegic shown to the jury was not cumulative, prejudicial, or inflammatory.

7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing cross-examination of plaintiff's vocational expert on the effect of plaintiff's alcohol consumption on his employability where the expert did not believe plaintiff had an alcohol problem.

8. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Minn.R.Evid. 701 in allowing a lay witness to testify about the safety features of farm machinery.

9. The trial court properly allowed an expert witness to identify and read portions of written materials to the jury to show the basis of his expert opinion under Minn.R.Evid. 703(b).

10. An insurer's subrogation rights do not extend to pre- and post-judgment interest on plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits under Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.061, subd. 6(d).

George G. Eck, Dorsey & Whitney, Richard R. Caldecott, Caldecott, Forro & Taber, Minneapolis, for Gerald W. Hahn.

Kent Charpentier, Koll, Morrison & Charpentier, Saint Paul, Kay Nord Hunt Eric J. Magnuson, Jeanne H. Unger, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, Minneapolis, Gordon H. Hansmeier, David K. Ryden, Donohue, Rajokowski, Ltd., St. Cloud, for Hutchinson Wil-Rich, Inc., formerly known as Hutchinson Division of Lear Siegler.

Mark N. Stageberg, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, Minneapolis, Kevin Stroup, Clarksfield, for Tri-Line Farmers Co-op.

Considered and decided by KALITOWSKI, P.J., and FORSBERG and SCHUMACHER, JJ.

OPINION

FORSBERG, Judge.

Respondent Gerald Hahn sued appellant Hutchinson Wil-Rich, Inc. ("Hutchinson") for injuries he sustained when moving a grain auger manufactured by Hutchinson. Hutchinson brought a third-party action for contribution or indemnity against Hahn's employer, Tri-Line Farmers Co-op ("Tri-Line"). The jury found Tri-Line 95% at fault, Hutchinson 3% at fault, and Hahn 2% at fault, and awarded Hahn $2,197,918 in damages.

Under the rule of Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 257 N.W.2d 679 (1979), the trial court determined that Hutchinson could obtain maximum contribution of $543,445 from Tri-Line, an amount equal to the total workers' compensation benefits which Tri-Line would pay Hahn. The trial court ordered Hutchinson to pay total damages of $1,610,515 and denied Hutchinson's motion to reallocate the damages uncollectible from Tri-Line pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 604.02, subd. 2 (1986).

Hutchinson filed this appeal, with which Tri-Line's separate appeal has been consolidated. By separate counsel, Tri-Line and its workers' compensation insurer, The Mill Mutuals, also filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Gerald Hahn was injured on August 28, 1986, when an auger he was towing behind a tractor detached from the tractor, rolled down a hill, and struck him in the back. Tri-Line is an agricultural cooperative with facilities in Boyd, Minnesota, where Hahn had been employed for 12 years.

Hutchinson manufactured the auger, which consisted of a long tube, eight inches in diameter, mounted at an angle on a tubular frame. The auger moved grain from the ground up into storage areas. The intake end of the auger tube rested on the ground and the discharge end was elevated in the air. The frame was on wheels so the entire assembly could be towed by tractor or truck. In 1973, Tri-Line acquired the original auger, which had a tube 53 feet in length.

In August 1986, Ordell Zietlow, Tri-Line's branch manager, told Cliff Skaja, a Tri-Line employee, to order a new auger tube. Skaja placed the order and picked the parts up at Wood and Conn, the distributor. The replacement tube was 57 feet long, four feet longer than the old tube. Skaja signed a receipt indicating the auger was "857," or eight inches in diameter and 57 feet in length. Skaja denied he was aware that he had received a longer auger tube. The longer tube changed the balance of the auger, making it more likely to tip over.

Prior to his accident, Hahn and other Tri-Line employees who used the auger were aware that the auger was top heavy and that the auger hitch could become disconnected during transport. Hahn testified he was not aware that others used a nut, bolt, and washers to secure the auger before moving it.

On the day of the accident, when Hahn moved the auger, he used a pin from the tractor draw bar to connect the auger hitch to the tractor. As a safety precaution, he secured the hitch with a ten-foot chain in case the pin and nail failed. When he started the tractor, the auger disconnected from the tractor and hit him in the back, injuring him seriously.

Several witnesses and two engineering experts testified that the nut, bolt, and washer in the tool box of the assembly carriage would have better secured the connection and would have prevented the accident. The parties submitted competing expert testimony on the adequacy of the hitch's design, the undercarriage, and the warnings on the auger and tube.

The jury found that the auger was defective because the accompanying warnings were inadequate, and that Hahn and Tri-Line also were negligent. The jury apportioned the responsibility for the accident, assigning 2% to Hahn, 3% to Hutchinson, and 95% to Tri-Line.

ISSUES

1. Whether the rule adopted in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. is unconstitutional as applied to this case and should be judicially modified?

2. Whether the amount of the judgment which Hutchinson cannot recover from Tri-Line because of the Lambertson contribution limit should be reallocated among Hahn and Hutchinson pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 604.02, subd. 2 (1986)?

3. Whether the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff's counsel to inform the jury of the effect of their answers to the verdict questions, in permitting the jury to examine the pleadings, and in allowing Hutchinson to argue that Tri-Line intentionally ordered a 57-foot auger?

4. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that they were not to consider plaintiff's failure to guard against defects in determining plaintiff's fault and by refusing to instruct the jury that any damage award would be nontaxable?

5. Whether the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a "Day in the Life" videotape of plaintiff, and in excluding evidence concerning plaintiff's alcohol consumption?

6. Whether the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony regarding plaintiff's move from Boyd to Minneapolis, in allowing lay witness testimony about the safety of clevis and flat bar hitches, and in allowing an expert to testify from manuals not admitted into evidence under Minn.R.Evid. 703(b)?

7. Whether the terms "proceeds for all actions for damages" to be allocated under Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.061, subd. 6 include pre- and post-judgment interest awarded to the employee, Hahn?

ANALYSIS

I.

This case involves the rule articulated in Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 312 Minn. 114, 257 N.W.2d 679 (1979), that the contribution to the third-party defendant from the plaintiff's employer cannot exceed the total amount of workers' compensation benefits which the employer shall pay the plaintiff. As Hutchinson was 3% at fault, its proportional share of the $2,197,918 of damages would be approximately $65,938. Under the common law, Hutchinson would be entitled to contribution from Tri-Line with whom it is jointly liable, for any payment in excess of that amount. However, according to Minn.Stat. Sec. 176.061 (1986) as modified by Lambertson, contribution from Tri-Line is limited to $543,445. Hutchinson must pay $1,610,515. Hutchinson claims that the application of the Lambertson ruling to this case is unconstitutional because it provides no reasonable substitute for the common law right of contribution.

The Lambertson court explained the third-party tortfeasor's equitable right of contribution:

"Since workmen's compensation statutes provide that the obligations thereunder are the only liability of the employer to the employee, or his representatives, there is no common liability involving the employer and the third party in such situations; and, therefore, there is no ground for allowing contribution." While there is no common liability to the third party in tort, both the employer and the third party are nonetheless liable to the employee for his injuries; the employer through the fixed no-fault workers' compensation system and the third party through the variable recovery available in a common law tort action. Contribution...