Mills v. Curioni, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-CV-71540-DT.,01-CV-71540-DT. |
| Citation | 238 F.Supp.2d 876 |
| Parties | Robert Paul MILLS, Plaintiff, v. CURIONI, INC., General Corrugated Machinery Co., Inc., Acme Corrugated Box Co., Inc., Hampton Industrial Services, Inc., Sun-Automation, Inc., and Officine Curioni, S.p.A, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Patrick J. Bruetsch, Esq., Birmingham, MI, for plaintiff.
Michael, V. Kell, Esq., Birmingham, MI, Mark A. Hypnar, Esq., Bloomfield Hills, MI, Witold Sztykiel, Esq., Corrine F. Shoop, Esq., Troy, MI, for defendant.
This product liability action is presently before the Court on five motions for summary judgment filed by four of the Defendants, i.e., two motions filed by Officine Curioni, S.p.A., and one each filed by General Corrugated Machinery Co., Inc., Acme Corrugated Box Co., Inc., and Hampton Industrial Services, Inc.1 Plaintiff has responded to all of these motions.2
Having reviewed and considered the Defendants' briefs and supporting documents, and having heard the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing conducted on December 5, 2002, the Court is now prepared to rule on the motions. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court's ruling.
Plaintiff Robert Paul Mills is an employee of Plymouth Packaging Company. On July 30, 1998, while operating a Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine at Plymouth Packaging, Mr. Mills's right hand was crushed when the work glove he was wearing got caught in the feeder roller of the machine. The Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine fabricates flat sheets of corrugated cardboard material, then prints, scores, slots, glues and folds the material into finished cardboard box. Defendant Officine Curioni, S.p.A., ("Curioni") manufactured the machine at issue at its plant in Milan, Italy.
In 1992, General Corrugated Machinery Company ("General Corrugated"), a New Jersey company which both manufactured its own corrugated box machinery and sold other manufacturers' machinery, orally agreed to act as United States sales agent for Curioni.3 In the fall of 1992, Defendant Acme Corrugated Box Company ("Acme"), a corrugated box producer in Pennsylvania, wanted to purchase a new Flexo-Folder-Gluer and submitted a purchase order on October 2, 1992 to Curioni through General Corrugated. Following some negotiation a deal was struck and in February 1993, a Curioni 2000 NT Flexo-Folder-Gluer was shipped directly from Curioni's Milan, Italy plant to Acme's plant in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Curioni personnel installed the Flexo-Folder-Gluer at Acme's plant.
From 1993 to 1998, Acme employees used the Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine to produce corrugated boxes. In 1998, Acme decided it no longer needed the machine and decided to sell it as used equipment "as is, where is."
In June 1998, Plymouth Packaging (Plaintiff's employer) entered into a purchase agreement with Acme pursuant to which Plymouth contracted to purchase the Flexo-Folder machine "as is" from Acme for $485,000. General Corrugated was not involved in the sale between Acme and Plymouth.
Pursuant to the Acme-Plymouth Packaging contract, Plymouth Packaging was responsible for all disassembly, rigging, loading and shipping of the Flexo-Folder and all of its related parts.4 Plymouth Packaging hired Defendant Hampton Industrial Services, Inc. to (1) travel to Pennsylvania to disassemble the Flexo-Folder; (2) transport the machine to Plymouth Packaging's Plymouth, Michigan facility;5 (3) unload the Flexo-Folder; and (4) reassemble the machine at the Plymouth facility.
The Flexo-Folder-Gluer is a large machine comprised of multiple sections: (1) the feed section; (2) the print section; (3) the slotting section; (4) the die cutter; (5) the folder-gluer; (6) the stitcher; and (7) the counter-elector. Plaintiff's injury allegedly occurred while he was wiping debris off of the feed table of the feed section.
Two employee-operators operate the Flexo-Folder-Gluer. In order to operate the machine, one of the operators will stand between the two side guide bars located at the front end of the machine where the feed section is located. [See photographs at Ex. 1 of the Acme Brief and at Ex. J of the Hampton Brief.] This operator loads flat sheets of cardboard stock into the feeder hopper. Id. Once the cardboard stock is loaded into the feeder hopper, the feed wheels, located on the feed table, and suction from underneath the feed table, guide the cardboard stock underneath the feed bar into the feed rollers, and through the machine process. Id. The machine operator does not have to manually feed, guide or push the stock into the feeder rolls. He only has to place piles of cardboard stock on the feed table between the two guides; the machine then automatically pulls in the stock, piece by piece.
The Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine has eight to ten emergency stop buttons. One of these emergency stop buttons is located at the front end of the machine on the control panel to the left of the feeder hopper. [See Hampton Brief, Ex. J, second photo.]
Plaintiff Robert Mills was hired by Plymouth Packaging in June 1996. Plaintiff testified that for nearly two years prior to his accident, he operated a Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine which was quite similar to the Curioni machine at issue. In fact, Plaintiff testified that when he went to Pennsylvania for training on the Curioni machine at the Acme facility, he told the Acme personnel that he really did not need training on the actual operation of the machine because he was already familiar with it from his operation of the older Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine. Following the installation of the Curioni machine at Plymouth Packaging, Plaintiff operated this machine for nearly three weeks prior to his accident.
Plaintiff testified that while operating the old Flexo-Folder-Gluer and the newer Curioni machine, he would notice cardboard scrap build up on the feed table to the left and right of where the cardboard stock was loaded into the feeder hopper. Plaintiff theorizes that this scrap build up was caused when the cardboard stock was cut by the machine in the slotting section, behind the feeder and printer sections, and then built up from the inside of the machine and up through the rollers onto the feed table. Plaintiff testified that it was his practice, both on the old and new machines, to use his hands to wipe the scrap from the feed table, so as to avoid the cardboard scrap from jamming the machine and causing a stoppage in production.
According to Plaintiff, three or four months prior to his accident, Plymouth Packaging began insisting that its workers wear gloves and goggles. Because of this, Plaintiff was wearing gloves at the time of his accident.
At approximately 6:30 a.m. on July 30, 1998, Plaintiff was working at the front end of the Curioni Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine, standing between the two side guide bars, and loading cardboard stock into the feeder hopper. As he did this, he began to notice scrap building up on the feed table, just to the right of the cardboard stock in the hopper. Plaintiff testified that he took his right hand and attempted to sweep the scrap off of the feed table and down onto the ground. However, as he did this, he believes that his glove got caught in the feeder rollers, which caused his right hand to be pulled into the feeder rollers and crushed between them.
On April 19, 2001, Plaintiff filed the instant product liability action in this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship against Curioni (USA), General Corrugated, and Acme. Plaintiff was subsequently granted leave to amend his complaint and on December 7, 2001, Mills filed his First Amended Complaint adding Hampton Industrial Services, Sun-Automation, Inc. and the Italian manufacturer, Officine Curioni, S.p.A. as party-defendants.
In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants negligently and defectively designed and manufactured the Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine6 and failed to warn users of the inherent danger in the operation of the machine and its feeding mechanism (Count I). He further alleges that Defendants are liable to him for breach of express and implied warranties (Count II). Discovery has now closed and four Defendants have moved for summary judgment.
Defendant Curioni, S.p.A., has filed two motions for dismissal and summary judgment. In its first motion, Curioni argues for entry of summary judgment in its favor claiming that, because Plaintiff failed to effectuate service of process on it within the 91-day time limit for doing so provided under the Michigan Court Rules, his Complaint against Curioni was dismissed by operation of law and may not be reinstated because the 3-year Michigan statute of limitations for product liability claims has now lapsed. In its second motion, Curioni argues that Plaintiff Mills should be deemed a "sophisticated user" of the Flexo-Folder-Gluer machine and that, because the risk of injury by placing one's hand in the pinch point area of the feed roller of this machine while it was in operation is an "open and obvious danger" and a matter of common sense, it should be absolved of liability for Plaintiff's injuries.
Defendant General Corrugated argues that Mills' failure to warn claim must be dismissed because Plaintiff admitted knowing of the obvious danger of placing his hand near or in the feeder rollers and further argues that Plaintiff's claims also fail because Plaintiff has failed to make out the statutory requirements for negligence and breach of warranty claims against a non-manufacturer seller.
Defendant Acme Corrugated Box Company similarly argues for dismissal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. Georgia
...(M.D.FIa. July 20, 2006) (unpublished); Melvin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 338 F.Supp.2d 622, 625 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d 876, 885 (E.D.Mich.2002); Hart v. Bates, 897 F.Supp. 710, 718 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Every court to hear this issue in a situation in which servic......
-
Avendt v. Covidien Inc., Case No. 11–cv–15538
...court determines that a defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty, summary disposition is appropriate."); Mills v. Curioni, Inc. , 238 F.Supp.2d 876, 892 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ("The issue of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff an actionable duty is a question of law to be decided by the court......
-
Paul v. Henri-Liné Mach. Tools, Inc.
...would know of this danger, and (3) failed to exercise reasonable care to inform consumers of the danger.” Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d 876, 887 (E.D.Mich.2002) (citing Peck v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 237 F.3d 614, 619 (6th Cir.2001)). However, a defense is created by Mich. Comp.......
-
Curry v. MEIJER, INC.
...in Coleman v. Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc., 475 F.Supp.2d 685, 687-691 (E.D.Mich. 2007), and Judge Gerald Rosen in Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d 876, 885-888 (E.D.Mich. 2002), are well reasoned and consistent with our judicial duty to enforce all the plain language in a statute. We also d......
-
Design defects.
...v. Richland Sales Corp., 803 N.E.2d 977 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (risk from removing loader's roll bar). Compare Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 876, 892 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ("It is only when a 'simple tool' is involved that the 'open and obvious danger' rule will relieve a manufacturer o......