Hyster Co. v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 03 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-264,89-264 |
| Citation | 560 So.2d 1334 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1233, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,451 HYSTER COMPANY, a Nevada corporation, Appellant, v. Charles D. STEPHENS and Annie Stephens, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles Cook Howell, III, of Commander, Legler, Werber, Dawes, Sadler & Howell, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Stephen J. Pajcic, III, and Michael B. Wedner, of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellees.
Hyster appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict awarding the Stephens a total of $700,000.00 damages in their product liability suit, as well as an amended judgment taxing costs. The Stephens based their complaint below upon the theory that there were design and manufacturing defects in the transmission of a forklift manufactured by Hyster, and that as a result of these defects, Mr. Stephens was injured. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Charlie Stephens and Mack Moreland were coemployees working for David Concrete. Moreland, while operating a Hyster forklift, exited the machine with the motor still running in order to help Stephens with a block. Moreland thought he had placed the top gear shift in neutral when he disembarked, but the forklift unexpectedly began to move forward and one of the forks pierced Stephens' leg.
The owner's and operator's manual for the Hyster forklift warns that before leaving the truck, the operator should lower the carriage completely, apply the parking brake, shut off the engine, and put the truck in gear. Moreland had not lowered the forks all the way to the ground, only to about knee level. Further, Moreland did not apply the parking brake, because it was not working. Brad Davis, Jr., former manager of David Concrete, testified that the parking brakes in the Hyster forklifts were burning out because the operators would put on the parking brake when they got off of the forklift and when they got back on, would put the lift in gear, forgetting about the brakes, thereby burning them up. Accordingly, David Concrete had instructed its drivers not to use the parking brake, but to lower the forks to the ground when they disembarked, so that contact between the load and the ground would act as a brake. Also, he testified that the drivers had been instructed to leave their machines running if they were getting off for only a short period of time. Turning the lifts on and off, even though the driver was off for a short period of time, would require monthly or weekly replacement of starters. However, Davis admitted that he was aware that Hyster's operator manual recommended the use of the parking brake and turning the engine off when the operator disembarked.
In support of their theory of liability, the Stephens introduced the testimony of a qualified expert engineer, Dr. Surosky, who demonstrated to the jury how the Hyster transmission worked. He testified that there was a design defect in the rod linkage and valve spool, resulting in an unstable connection between the rod and valve, which allowed the rod to wear or gouge a large egg-shaped hole in the valve spool. There were also defects in the design of the valve spool itself. These defects created a condition which allowed the transmission of the forklift to move out of neutral, or what appeared to be a neutral position of the gear shift lever, and into gear.
Regarding the defect in the manufacturing of the production rod, Dr. Surosky testified that it was essential that the rod be very smooth and meet rigid specifications. A rough rod would result in increased filing action and more damage to the valve spool. However, upon comparison of a number of production rods received from Hyster, Dr. Surosky discovered a wide variation in the rods, some with very rough ends. He concluded that a similar rough end must have been in the forklift which injured Stephens to cause the extensive damage to the valve spool, thereby allowing the transmission of the forklift to jump into gear. Dr. Surosky opined, accordingly, that the defective design and manufacture of the forklift caused the accident. The jury obviously agreed with Dr. Surosky's version of the accident.
On appeal, Hyster argues that even if there was a defect in its product the trial court should have directed a verdict for Hyster because the combined negligence of the owner (David Concrete) and the operator (Mac Moreland) was so egregious that it constituted an unforeseeable, independent, intervening cause of the accident as a matter of law. Problems with the forklift were reported to David Concrete; but David Concrete failed to keep the forklift properly tuned and repaired, and failed to report the problems to Hyster. Moreover, Moreland failed in almost every respect to follow the applicable safety regulations when he disembarked from the forklift....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyster Co. v. David
...forklift to be defective, and awarded the Stephenses $700,000.00. Hyster appealed to this court, which affirmed. Hyster Co. v. Stephens, 560 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA1990). Hyster then sought discretionary review in the supreme court. However, in October 1990, while the petition for review w......
-
Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 96-3518
...whose deposition is taken shall be allowed a witness fee in such reasonable amount as the court may determine."); Hyster Co. v. Stephens, 560 So.2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 141 (Fla.1990) (determining that expert witness fee may be taxed as cost against deposing par......
-
Square D Co. v. Hayson
...are not involved in the accident, do not absolve the manufacturer of liability). This court's recent decision in Hyster Co. v. Stephens, 560 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) provides additional guidance. Hyster held that whether an alleged design defect in a forklift transmission--which alleg......
-
Seabrooks v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 98-4049.
...items of costs, Appellants fail to show that the trial court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm. Hyster Co. v. Stephens, 560 So.2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA)(citing Siebert v. City of Vero Beach, 555 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)),rev. denied, 574 So.2d 141 AFFIRMED in part, REVE......
-
A practitioner's guide to the taxation of costs in civil actions.
...358 So. 2d 253, 254 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1978). (46) Avellone v. Mehta, 544 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1989). (47) Hyster Co. v. Stephens, 560 So. 2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1990); Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Chimielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1990); Coastal Petrole......
-
The rising cost of discovery from expert witnesses: problems and solutions.
...419 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1982); Lafferty v. Lafferty, 413 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1982). (5) Hyster Company v. Stephens, 560 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1990); Eppler v. Tarmac America, Inc., 695 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. (6) See Hyster, 560 So. 2d 1334; Eppler, 695 So. 2d 775. ......