Jimenez v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 83-756

• Decision Date: 23 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-756,83-756
• Citation: 458 So.2d 58
• Parties: Jose A. JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. GULF & WESTERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 58

458 So.2d 58

Jose A. JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. GULF & WESTERN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, etc., Appellee.

No. 83-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Oct. 23, 1984.

Tew, Spittler, Berger & Bluestein and Jeffrey Allen Tew, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Preddy, Kutner & Hardy and G. William Bissett, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Jose Jimenez appeals from an adverse final judgment entered on a jury verdict finding no liability on the part of the manufacturer in this products liability action. We affirm.

The machine involved in this cause was a punch, or power, press owned by Alva Metals and used to prepare metal pieces which would ultimately be assembled to make furniture. This was a multi-purpose machine, doing different functions depending on what dies were being used. It is undisputed that the press, manufactured by appellee in 1937, had no point of operation or other guard system, although Alva Metals was contemplating the addition of one. Appellant's hand was crushed in the press when he inadvertently slipped and came into contact with some part of the die area. The complaint sounded in strict liability only, and alleged that appellee designed, manufactured, and placed on the market this press which was defective in design, unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a guard system, and the cause of appellant's injuries. Prior to trial, appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence that any third party had a duty to modify the press to make it safer. This motion was not ruled upon. Appellee's expert, therefore, was allowed to read to the jury, over objection, 1971 federal OSHA ¹ regulations which assigned to the employer the duty of placing a point of operation guard on this machine. In addition, he was allowed to testify about the "ANSI" (American National Standards Institute) standards which also placed the duty to guard on the employer.

It is well settled that if there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the district court's opinion as to its appropriateness. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Frank, 442 So.2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gonpere Corp. v. Rebull, 440 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The jury was presented with evidence tending to show that as early as 1922, private industry safety codes recognized that where a punch press could be used for multiple purposes, it made more sense to allow the purchaser to select a guard system compatible with the purpose to which he would use the machine. That is to say, even though there had been developed by 1937 several different guarding systems, and appellee does not dispute that this technology was available at the time it manufactured the punch press, the custom of the industry was to sell these machines unguarded and to let the user choose and install the relevant safety devices. ² Trade custom at the time of a product's manufacture is a valid defense in a products liability suit. Ford v. International Harvester Co., 430 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Thus, the jury could reasonably find that even though the manufacturer admittedly placed this machine on the market in a defective condition, the custom of the industry was such that the machine should not be considered "unreasonably dangerous" because the manufacturer's reasonable expectation was that the user would put a guard on the press.

Against this background, the question of the admissibility of the OSHA regulations, while still troubling, diminishes in importance in this case. First of all, the admission of evidence is a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge, whose decision in that regard must be viewed in the context of the entire trial. Division of Corrections v. Wynn, 438 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Second, it is clear that evidence of an OSHA violation is admissible in a negligence action for support for a manufacturer's assertion that its error was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Rabon v. Automatic Fasteners, Inc., 672 F.2d 1231 (5th Cir.1982) (applying Florida law); Clement v. Rousselle Corp., 372 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1191 (Fla.1980). The question of the relevance of OSHA violations in a strict liability action, however, is one of first impression in Florida. Decisions in other jurisdictions provide no clear guidance. Certain propositions may be stated, however.

It is well settled that OSHA does not provide the basis for an independent federal cause of action against either employers or third parties such as manufacturers, Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir.1981), nor does it enlarge or diminish common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4) (1976). Perhaps evidence of an employer's OSHA violation is relevant to the issue of causation in a products liability suit, in much the same fashion as it would pertain to evidence of duty and proximate causation in a negligence action. Additionally, with the proper limiting instruction by the trial court, OSHA standards may constitute some evidence (perhaps weak) of industry custom or practice. There is a suggestion in the cases, however, that, with respect to products liability, an employer's duty under OSHA should not in fact reduce a manufacturer's...