Paul v. Henri-Liné Mach. Tools, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–10832.
• Citation: 938 F.Supp.2d 691
• Parties: Sandra D. PAUL, Plaintiff, v. HENRI–LINÉ MACHINE TOOLS, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

938 F.Supp.2d 691

Sandra D. PAUL, Plaintiff,

v.HENRI–LINÉ MACHINE TOOLS, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 10–10832.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

March 30, 2013.

William J. Lamping, Vestevich, Mallender, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.

Rick J. Patterson, Steven M. Potter, Thomas M. Deagostino, Potter, Deagostino, O'Dea & Patterson, Auburn Hills, MI, for Defendant.

ORDER

JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR., District Judge.

This is a product liability action in which the Plaintiff, Sandra D. Paul, acting in her official capacity as the personal representative of the deceased estate of her husband, Jay Curtis Paul,¹ contends that an overhead gantry milling machine that had been manufactured and designed by the Defendant, Henri–Liné Machine Tools, Inc. (“Henri–Liné Tools”), was responsible for his death. Her allegations of liability have been denied by Henri–Liné Tools.

There are several motions currently pending before the Court; namely, (1) Paul's motion to strike the reply by Henri–Liné Tools, (2) Henri–Liné Tools' motion for the entry of a summary judgment; and (3) Paul's motion to set a trial date.

I.

On December 16, 2011, Henri–Liné Tools filed a motion for the entry of a summary judgment, relying in part on the testimony of Jack Auflick, whose opinion relating to the probability of the accident was challenged by Paul. In her effort to prevent Auflick's testimony from being adopted by the Court, Paul filed a motion which, if granted, would exclude this expert opinion from being considered by the Court. On the following day, her motion to exclude was referred to a magistrate judge who denied her motion. Paul timely filed an objection to this order. On December 20, 2012, the Court affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling. Six days later, Henri–Liné Tools filed its reply brief on December 26, 2012.

Paul submits that the reply brief from Henri–Liné Tools was due seven days after the entry of the magistrate judge's order. Henri–Liné Tools, on the other hand, maintains that the reply brief was timely filed because, as a result of Paul's objections, it was not due until seven days after the entry of the final order by the Court on December 20th. The Court agrees with Henri–Liné Tools on this issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 requires a court to consider all timely filed objections and to set aside any part of an order that is clearly erroneous. Inasmuch as both parties knew that an order was forthcoming from the Court which would resolve Paul's objection, Henri–Liné Tools appropriately waited to file its reply brief until the entry of the order. Notably, Paul does not allege that she suffered any prejudice as a result of the later filing. Thus, Paul's motion to strike Henri–Liné Tools' reply is denied.

II.

This lawsuit relates to an accident that occurred at Lincoln Park Boring Company (“Lincoln Park Boring”) on July 30, 2008 when Paul's husband, Jay Curtis Paul, while operating one of Henri–Liné Tools's overhead gantry milling machines, left his operator's booth and later became entangled in its vertical cutting tool. Lincoln Park Boring is a machining company, which specializes in machining unique large metal components to the specifications of its customers. Henri–Liné Tools is a manufacturer and seller of custom overhead gantry milling machines.

Jay Curtis Paul was initially hired by Lincoln Park Boring in 2002. For over six years, he served as the lead machinist and the day-shift operator on the overhead gantry machine. The president of Lincoln Park Boring, Richard Yesue, referred to him as the “best machinist” he had ever employed at the company. (Yesue Dep. 20:16–21). Frank Shafer, the head machine tool operator, described him as the best machinist he had seen in his forty years of experience. (Shafer Dep. 62–63). At the time of his death, Jay Curtis Paul had accumulated over twenty years of experience as a machinist.

The overhead gantry milling machine is a large, complex machine with computerized numeric controls that is designed to cut metal. This particular machine was built specifically for Lincoln Park Boring in 1999 and 2000 and installed there in late 2000 and early 2001. After the installation, Henri–Liné Tools trained Shafer how to operate the machine, and Shafer trained the other Lincoln Park Boring employees.

The work area of the machine is a flat, rectangular bed that is approximately 50 feet long and 15 feet wide and level with the floor of the shop. The work piece remains at rest on the bed of the machine while the cutting tool of the machine travels around the stationary piece. An overhead gantry milling machine is characterized by a large, metal cross-rail that is attached to two vertical columns, which are located on either side of the machine bed. This entire assembly (“the gantry”) travels as a unit up and down the length of the work area (“the x-axis”). Attached to the crossrail is a vertical spindle which houses the cutting tool. This spindle travels back and forth along the crossrail, allowing access to the entire width of the bed of the machine (“the y-axis”). The spindle also raises and lowers the cutting head vertically to different heights above the platform bed (“the z-axis”). Thus, through the movement of the gantry and the spindle, the cutting head is able to travel in all three dimensions and access any area on or above the bed of the machine.

This machine is used by Lincoln Park Boring to create one-of-a-kind machine parts. Every part is a different size and shape and some of them fill the entire work space or even extend off the bed. (Yesue Dep., at 49:10–50:12). The part that was being utilized at the time of the accident was 14.5 feet wide by 50 feet long. (Auflick Rep., Pl. Resp., Ex. 14, at 4). Yesue testified that he purchased this machine with the hope of attracting customers who needed a unique piece and for whom the purchase of a milling machine would not be practical. The flexibility to machine different sizes and shapes of metal is a key attribute of the overhead gantry milling machine.

The machine's operation is controlled from a platform that is permanently attached to the gantry in order to provide a close view of the spindle and the cutting process. Once the machine is programmed and the program is started, the machine continues to operate even if the operator leaves the control station on the operator's platform. There is no guard or other barrier to prevent the operator from entering the work area during its operation.

This particular machine is frequently operated on a twenty-four hour basis. Operators often must exit the platform during operation in order to perform such tasks as preparing tools, cleaning the floor, preparing materials for the next part, removing metal chips created by the cutting tool, inspecting the work piece, verifying that the machine is cutting correctly, or applying lubricant to the cut. An air hose with an attachment approximately eighteen inches long permitted operators to maintain some distance between themselves and the cutting tool when blowing metal chips away from the point of the cut.

Henri–Liné Tools evaluated the issue of operator safety multiple times, including its consideration of a means of preventing the operator from leaving the platform while the machine was cutting. (Jetté Dep. 22, 37). The Company had considered adding a barrier to the machine, but the erection of such a barrier was generally thought to be impractical, given the need for (1) the operator to have access to the work area while the machine is running and (2) the flexibility to machine unique parts. ( Id. at 19–23, 28, 37).

In this case, there were no known witnesses to the accident, and its cause is unknown. It was determined that the machine was in an automatic mode when Jay Curtis Paul left the platform and entered work area. The parties have speculated that he may have been blowing metal chips off of the work piece at the time of the accident. Apparently, while he was on the bed of the machine near the work piece, the cutting tool traveled directly over his head and then, in order to continue its programmed cuts, descended, cutting into his shoulder. It is not clear why he permitted the cutting tool to get so close to him. This particular machine moves at a maximum speed of approximately one-half mile per hour, (Anthony Dep. 177:8–15), which is considered low-speed, Id. at 87:18–21. The average person walks more than five times faster than the machine's highest speed. Aside from being slow, the machine is also quite visible and noisy when it is moving. (Jetté Dep. 59:7–20). Yesue testified that (1) Jay Curtis Paul knew that one should never allow himself to come between the cutter and the work piece and (2) nobody was able to deduce an explanation for the accident that made sense to him. Id. at 22:3–4. The Plaintiff speculates that her husband may have thought that he had programmed a pause in the code that would stop the cutting tool at the point directly above him.

On July 30, 2008, the accident was investigated by the Michigan Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“MIOSHA”). After its investigation, MIOSHA declined to issue a citation to Lincoln Park Boring. Although the MIOSHA report indicated that the machine was adequately guarded, it also appeared to indicate that the operator should not be able to physically interpose himself between the cutting head and the work piece. The report did not make any recommendations regarding additional guards to place on the machine.

This lawsuit followed on March 1, 2010.

III.

The purpose of the summary judgment rule, as reflected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupportable claims or defenses....” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The entry of a summary judgment is proper only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is...