Hatcher v. SCM Grp. N. Am., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1630
• Citation: 167 F.Supp.3d 719
• Parties: Antonio Hatcher, Plaintiff, v. SCM Group North America, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

167 F.Supp.3d 719

Antonio Hatcher, Plaintiff,

v.SCM Group North America, Inc., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1630

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed March 1, 2016

Order Denying Reconsideration March 30, 2016

Brandon A. Swartz, Bryan Michael Ferris, Scott Eric Diamond, Swartz Culleton PC, Newtown, PA, for Plaintiff.

James D. Meadows, Balch & Bingham LLP, Atlanta, GA, John M. Donahue, John J. Hatzell, Jr., Strachan & Hatzell, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

Schiller

, District Judge.

Antonio Hatcher injured three fingers while working with an industrial woodworking machine and sued the machine manufacturer, SCM Group North America, Inc. (“SCM”), for breach of warranty, defective manufacturing, defective design and failure to warn.

SCM has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, this Court will grant summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Hatcher was injured on September 27, 2014, at the Timberlane, Inc., plant in Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania, where he was a machinist. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 2, 26.) He was feeding a piece of wood into an industrial woodworking machine called a T130 Shaper when his hand slipped, causing three fingers to strike the spinning blade. (Id . ¶¶ 1-2.) The entire incident was captured on camera. (Id. ¶ 3.)

A. T130 Shaper

The T130 Shaper is a multipurpose woodworking machine made by SCM. (Id . ¶ 6.) Timberlane purchased this machine at an auction in the late 1980s. (Id. at ¶ 7; Def.'s Mem. at 22.) The T130 Shaper's safety devices include: (1) two wooden fences on the left and right sides of the blade to provide support while feeding wood into the machine; and (2) a spring steel safety guard (“blade guard”) that partially covers the spinning blade. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 8-9, 14, 16.) The fence system has an opening in the middle where the blade located. (Id. ¶ 10.) The blade guard fits into pre-drilled holes on the fence system above the blade. (Id. ¶ 16.)

The fence system and the blade guard are adjustable and removable. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 19.) The blade guard is removable because it cannot be used for some applications. (Id. ¶ 17.) The operator must reposition the blade guard for each different application to ensure that the blade is exposed no more than necessary. (Id. ¶ 14.)

On the front of the machine, there is a black warning label that states, in capital letters, “DON'T RUN THE MACHINE WITHOUT NECESSARY SAFETY GUARDS.” (Id. ¶ 20.) The accompanying operation and maintenance manual explains in detail how to use and assemble each of the safety guards, including the fence system and the blade guard. (Id. ¶ 16.) The manual warns, “Before starting machine, make sure all guards are in place.” (Id. ¶ 21.)

B. September 27, 2014 Accident

On September 27, 2014, the day of the accident, Hatcher volunteered to help his coworker, Nathan Try, operate the T130 Shaper. (Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 26.) Try set up the machine by inserting the cutterhead at the correct height and adjusting the fences to the correct depth. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 30-32.) The fences were configured in the “zero-clearance” position for maximum safety, but the blade guard was not in use. (Id . ¶ 32; Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 32.)

Hatcher began feeding a plank of cedar wood into the machine. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 33.) The plank was 3/4 of an inch thick, leaving 1/8 of an inch of the spinning blade exposed above the surface of the plank as the plank passed through the blade. (Id .) Hatcher had completed roughly 25% of the cut on one side of the plank when his hand slipped. (Id .) The tips of three fingers made contact with the blade, causing open fractures

and lacerations to the index, middle and ring fingers on his left hand. (Id. ¶ 35; Pl.'s Mem. at 2.)

C. Training, Knowledge and Safety Precautions at Timberlane, Inc.

Timberlane hired Hatcher three months before the accident to operate the beam saw in the machine shop. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 26.) Although Hatcher had extensive experience with power tools, he had operated the T130 Shaper only once before the accident. (Pl.'s Add'l Facts ¶ 1.) Hatcher did not receive any formal training on the machine, aside from a demonstration with verbal instructions by Try, the primary operator of the T130 Shaper, on the day of the accident. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Before the accident, neither Hatcher nor Try had ever read the operating manual, which explains in detail how to use the necessary safety guards, including the blade guard; Hatcher also admits he never read the warning on the machine that stated, “DON'T RUN THE MACHINE WITHOUT NECESSARY SAFETY GUARDS.” (Id . ¶¶ 36, 37; Pl.'s Add'l Facts ¶ 4.) Moreover, Hatcher, Try and Jeffrey Crescenzo, Timberlane's plant manager, have each stated in depositions that they never knew about the existence of the blade guard, which was not in use at the time of the accident. (Id . ¶ 6.) Aside from Hatcher's injuries, Timberlane has not had any problems with the machine since purchasing it at an auction over twenty-five years ago. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 40.) Crescenzo and Try testified that they still believe, despite the accident, that the machine is safe to use without the blade guard, and that it was set up properly on the day of the accident. (Try Dep. at 49:3-8; Crescenzo Dep. at 32:5-9.) For his part, Hatcher states that the blade guard would have prevented the injury, and he claims that he would not have used the machine without the blade guard if he had known it existed. (Def.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 38, 41.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

; see also

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In reviewing the record, “a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor.” Armbruster v. Unisys Corp. , 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir.1994). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the record reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; Anderson , 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 585–86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). “There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “Such affirmative evidence—regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial—must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance.” Williams v. Borough of W. Chester , 891 F.2d 458, 460–61 (3d Cir.1989).

A court may not consider the credibility or weight of the evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc. , 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992)

. Nonetheless, a party opposing summary judgment must do more than rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or vague statements. Quiroga v. Hasbro, Inc. , 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir.1991). If the nonmoving party's evidence “is merely colorable,...or is not significantly probative,...summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. DISCUSSION

Hatcher initially presented four claims in the Complaint: (1) breach of express and implied warranties; (2) defective manufacturing; (3) defective design; and (4) failure to warn. Hatcher now concedes there was no manufacturing defect, and he does not dispute SCM's evidence that the breach of warranty claim is time barred. Additionally, Hatcher fails to distinguish between the defective design claim and failure-to-warn claim, offering no evidence to support an independent defective design claim. His failure-to-warn claim likewise fails because the danger of the spinning blades was open and obvious, and the existing warnings adequately addressed the danger of operating the machine without safety guards. Accordingly, this Court will grant summary judgment to SCM.

A. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties

Hatcher alleged in the Complaint that SCM “violated its implied and express warranties to [him] by designing, manufacturing, distributing and selling a [defective machine].” (Compl. ¶ 15.) This claim is barred by the statute of limitations, because Hatcher filed this lawsuit more than four years after Timberlane purchased the machine. Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for breach of express or implied warranties is four years. 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2725(a)

, (b). The limitations period begins when the seller tenders the goods. Id

. ; see also

Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp ., 533 Pa. 423, 625 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1993) (“[A] breach of warranty action accrues on, and suit must be filed within four years of, the date the seller tenders delivery of the goods, even if the breach is not apparent until after delivery has been tendered.”). Here, Timberlane purchased the T130 Shaper at an auction in the late 1980s, and Hatcher did not sue until March 30, 2015. (Def.'s Mem. at 22.) Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment to SCM on the breach of warranty claims.

B. Defective Manufacturing

In the Complaint, Hatcher alleged that the T130 Shaper was “defectively manufactured.” (Compl. ¶ 9.) Hatcher now admits, however, that “[T]here was nothing mechanically wrong with the Shaper and it did not malfunction.” (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 39; Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 39.) In the same vein, Hatcher's co-workers testified that the machine...