McManus v. Barnegat Rehab. & Nursing Ctr. & Crown Equip. Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 15-2109 (BRM)(LHG) |
| Parties | KEVIN MCMANUS, Plaintiff, v. BARNEGAT REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before this Court are (1) Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation's ("Crown") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) and (2) Defendant Barnegat Operating Company, L.P. d/b/a Barnegat Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's ("Barnegat") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66). Plaintiff Kevin McManus ("McManus") opposes both motions. (ECF Nos. 73 & 69.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court did not hear oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, Crown's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Barnegat's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
This personal injury lawsuit "arises out of a one-person accident [(the "Accident")] that occurred on August 3, 2012, while [McManus] was unloading a pallet of materials with a manual pallet truck at [Barnegat]." (Crown's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 65-2) ¶ 2); Pl.'s Resp. to Crown's Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 74) ¶ 2.) McManus alleges Barnegat failed to provide a safe means to make deliveries to its building and claims the pallet truck (the "Pallet Truck"), which Crown manufactured, malfunctioned during the Accident. (Barnegat's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 66) ¶¶ 1-2); Pl.'s Resp. to Barnegat's Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 70) ¶¶ 1-2.) On July 25, 2014, McManus filed a six-count Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Law Division, under Docket Number OCN-L2120-14, asserting a claim for negligence against Barnegat (Count I), and a claim for negligence and/or strict liability against Crown (Count III).1 On March 24, 2015, Crown removed the case to this Court. (ECF No. 1.)
McKesson Medical purchased the Pallet Truck, which was delivered fully assembled. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 29; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 29.) The Pallet Truck was from the Crown PTH 50 series ("PTH 50"). (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 6; ECF No. 74 ¶ 6.) McManus and Crown dispute the age of the Pallet Truck. (McManus's Additional Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opp'n to Crown's Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 74-1) ¶ 5); Crown's Resp. to Pl.'s Additional Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 75-1) ¶ 5.) McManus claims the Pallet Truck "was a brand new pallet jack and had been purchased from Crown by McKesson [Medical] within three (3) months prior to" the Accident. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 5.) Crown disputes this and contends McManus never identified the serial number for the Pallet Truck, which prevented Crown from producing a sales invoice for the item. (ECFNo. 75-1 ¶ 5.)
The PTH 50 "is controlled using a spring-loaded metal handle that can be positioned from vertical to almost horizontal. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 7; ECF No. 74 ¶ 7.) The PTH 50's handle features an actuating lever. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 8; ECF No. 74 ¶ 8.) To raise pallets, a user adjusts the PTH 50's actuating lever to the "raise" position and then pumps the handle to cause the forks to lift the pallet via hydraulics. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 8; ECF No. 74 ¶ 8.) To move the PTH 50, a user adjusts the actuating lever to the "neutral" position. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 9; ECF No. 74 ¶ 9.) Finally, a user adjusts the actuating lever to the "lower" position to lower the forks. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 74 ¶ 10.) The farther the actuating lever is pulled up toward the handle, the faster the forks will lower. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 11; ECF No. 74 ¶ 11.) The PTH 50 is designed so the handle's position—whether upright perpendicular to the ground, or lowered—does not affect the mechanics of lowering the forks. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 12; ECF No. 74 ¶ 12.)
At the time of the Accident, McManus working for McKesson Medical as a lead driver/dispatcher, which required him to make deliveries once or twice a week. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶¶ 3, 5; ECF No. 74 ¶¶ 3, 5.) Prior to the Accident, McManus had been to Barnegat twice before with his colleague, Edward Thurston, who routinely made deliveries to Barnegat. (ECF No. 66 ¶ 7; ECF No. 70 ¶ 7.) McKesson Medical employees had made deliveries to Barnegat every Friday since McManus became a lead driver for the company in the summer of 2012. (ECF No. 66 ¶¶ 3, 11; ECF No. 70 ¶¶ 3, 11.) McManus claims Barnegat required drivers to make deliveries to the rear of the facility, which sloped downward toward the door. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 17; ECF No. 74 ¶ 17; ECF No. 66 ¶ 12; ECF No. 70 ¶¶ 12.) McKesson Medical drivers had complained about making deliveries to Barnegat, because on two occasions the truck was unloaded while on a slope and this caused pallets to roll out of control. (ECF No. 66 ¶ 13; ECF No. 70 ¶ 13.) Because of this slope,McManus believed it was safer for two people to deliver pallets to Barnegat. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 20; ECF No. 74 ¶ 20.) One of the workers would steer the pallet by holding the handle of the pallet truck, while the other would hold the loaded pallet to slow it down. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 44; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 44.) If the pallet load gained momentum, the pallet truck operator would lower the forks of the pallet truck to drop the load and stop the momentum of the pallet truck. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 45; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 45.) However, on the date of the Accident, McManus made the delivery to Barnegat by himself. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 22; ECF No. 74 ¶ 22; ECF No. 66 ¶ 15; ECF No. 70 ¶ 15.)
McManus received training on using the PTH 50 from McKesson Medical and received training at least once a year on the general use of manual pallet trucks. (ECF No. 65-2 ¶ 13; ECF No. 74 ¶ 13.) However, he did not receive any training on how to operate a pallet truck on a slope. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 47; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 47.) On the day of the Accident, McManus performed routine inspections of the Pallet Truck. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶¶ 5-6; ECF No. 75-1 ¶¶ 5-6.) McManus made several deliveries before the delivery to Barnegat and used the Pallet Truck at each of them. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 35; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 35.)
When he was making the delivery at Barnegat, McManus slid the Pallet Truck's forks under the pallet and began to back the pallet away from the interior wall of the truck in an "S" like, or zigzag, manner "so the full weight of the pallet was not on him." (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 53; ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 53.) McManus made it halfway through the truck when the Pallet Truck suddenly picked up momentum. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶¶ 61-62; ECF No. 75-1 ¶¶ 62-62.) To slow the Pallet Truck down, McManus testified he hit the release lever, but the pallet did not drop. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 63.) Crown denies the Pallet Truck malfunctioned. (ECF No. 75-1 ¶ 63.) McManus testified his arm became tangled in the handle of the Pallet Truck, which dragged him to the back of the truck. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶ 65.) Despite this episode, McManus was able to complete the delivery to Barnegat, afterwhich he radioed his supervisor at McKesson Medical, Eric Lambert ("Lambert"), and informed him he had had an accident at Barnegat. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶¶ 68, 70; ECF No. 75-1 ¶¶ 68, 70.)
McManus testified several McKesson Medical employees observed an inspection of the Pallet Truck after the Accident in which the Pallet Truck did not function properly. (ECF No. 74-1 ¶¶ 72-74.) Specifically, the Pallet Truck's forks did not drop properly unless the device's handle was positioned upright at a 90-degree angle. (Id. ¶ 74.) When the Pallet Truck's handle was positioned completely upright, the forks dropped immediately, but if the handle was in any other position the forks dropped slowly. (Id. ¶¶ 75-76.) Lambert testified he tested the Pallet Truck after the Accident and found the forks did not drop unless the handle was completely upright. (Id. ¶ 78.) The Pallet Truck was stored at McKesson Medical's warehouse after the accident, but the Pallet Truck disappeared months later when the warehouse was demolished. (Id. ¶¶ 87-91.)
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A factual dispute is genuine only if there is "a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party," and it is material only if it has the ability to "affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Kaucher v. Cty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's evidence 'is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn inhis favor.'" Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255)); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, (1986); Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002).
The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "If the moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party must support its motion with credible evidence . . . that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial." Id. at 331. On the other hand, if the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the nonmoving party, the party moving for summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial