Phillips v. S.C. State Univ.
| Decision Date | 12 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2005-UP-320 |
| Parties | Michael G. Phillips, Andre Sullivan, Tywanna Kithcart, Samuel Gallishaw, Latesia Brinson, Jameta Wheeler, Chasity McClam, Chasie McClam, Ramona Banks, Christopher Adams, Amithy Merrill, Mark Dudley, Reginald Ray, Sandy Rogers, Nicole Sims, Luciana White, Janell Branch, Chauncey Black, Gregory Gartrell, Tamara Elliott, Monifa Drayton, Talisha Brown, Nadya Brown, Randy Brantley, Keshia Oliver, Crystal Mack, Devonna McCray, Angela Holland, Willie S. Trappier, Delane Mitchell and Neva Gray, Appellants, v. South Carolina State University, Rheem Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Honeywell, Inc., Defendants, of whom Honeywell, Inc., is, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted March 1, 2005
Appeal From Orangeburg County James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Brenda Reddix-Smalls, of Columbia, for Appellants.
Jeannine L. Lee and Patrick R. Martin, of Minneapolis, MN and Phillip Florence and Thomas Gottshall, of Columbia, for Respondent.
In this product liability case, Appellants are students of South Carolina State University (SCSU) who were injured when a water heater began emanating carbon monoxide. Appellants brought an action against the university and the manufacturers of the water heater before settling these claims. Honeywell, Inc., the supplier of one of the components of the hot water heater, remained as the lone defendant. Appellants asserted numerous theories of liability and the trial judge granted summary judgment. We affirm. [1]
On August 29, 1998, a water heater issued toxic fumes into a dormitory that killed one student in an adjacent room and affected several other students. Tests conducted shortly after the incident indicated concentrations of carbon monoxide were present in the room where the water heater was located and in the dormitory rooms in the immediate vicinity.
Rheem Manufacturing Co., Inc. manufactured the water heater while SCSU installed and maintained it. The water heater design included an energy saving damper that closed the flue opening when the water heater was not in operation. The damper consisted of a metal flap at the top of the water heater that was designed to open prior to burner operation to allow the combustion products to vent. Rheem manufactured the damper assembly. The damper was attached by a rod to a damper actuator motor which powered the damper to open and close. Honeywell supplied the actuator motor, a Honeywell model M892, and a small arrow coupler clip to Rheem.
Because of the danger of carbon monoxide production, the damper assembly was required to have a backup mechanism to ensure that the damper opened when the water heater was on in case of motive power failure or deenergization of the vent damper device. Although Honeywell also manufactured a complete damper assembly that incorporated such a failsafe mechanism the D892, Rheem did not use this product. Instead, Rheem designed its own damper assembly and incorporated only the M892 actuator motor from Honeywell.
When Honeywell originally designed D892, it incorporated a return spring to pull the damper to a fully open position. [2] The D892 was certified for compliance with applicable industry standards.
Honeywell subsequently decided to sell the actuator motor separately to manufacturers who wanted to build their own damper assemblies. The M892 was a motor that caused a ninety degree rotation of a shaft which was a standard item that could be used in a variety of applications. Appellants' expert testified that the M892 was a proven product with a history of manufacture of around a hundred thousand units” and that as a stand-alone component, it was a functional motor that satisfie[d] the intent of [industry] specifications.” Appellants' expert further agreed that the M892 by itself was safe.
Because the M892 could be used to power a damper assembly, Honeywell provided a warning label notifying purchasers that the completed damper assembly would need a failsafe device to open the damper. The original warning label specified a spring for this purpose, similar to the design of the D892. The warning label was Honeywell's only means of insuring the safety of the final product.
When Rheem designed its damper, however, Rheem elected not to use a spring. Rheem made this decision in order to avoid using moving parts and because of concerns that the spring could be subject to corrosion or tampering and therefore elected to use a counterweight instead.
During the design phase, Rheem and Honeywell discussed certain problems with the application. One difficulty was that the damper, incorporating the Honeywell motor, would not close all the way. Engineers from Rheem and Honeywell met and determined that Honeywell's motor was not at fault. Instead, parts of the damper assembly were interfering with each other to prevent closure. Later, Rheem requested that the warning label be changed to reflect its decision to use a counterweight. Honeywell approved the change, realizing that alternate means of accomplishing the purpose served by the spring existed. The warning labels shipped to Rheem called for a return mechanism” instead of a return spring” to serve as a failsafe device.
Once these problems were resolved, Honeywell approved the application. Rheem then sought and obtained American Gas Association (AGA) certification of the complete water heater. AGA used test data on the M892 from Honeywell's D892 certification to complete the test report. Honeywell did not test the final damper assembly because the testing was performed by Rheem.
Appellants' experts attributed the release of the carbon monoxide to three main factors: (1) improper maintenance and installation of the water heater; (2) improper design of the water heater which allowed condensation to drip on the burner; and (3) incomplete venting due to a faulty damper assembly. Since Rheem and SCSU are no longer parties to this action, the only remaining issues relate to the damper assembly.
When the responding public agencies arrived to test the water heater the morning after the incident, they saw SCSU employees leaving the utility room carrying duct tape and hand tools. The responding officials were concerned because the utility room was supposed to have been a taped-off secure area. SCSU employees admitted they found the damper assembly disconnected from the motor and tried unsuccessfully to reattach it with duct tape. They could not connect the parts because a coupler was missing.
Honeywell's expert testified that the damper assembly had been intentionally disconnected because the connecting rod was bent and the motors holding Honeywell's motor in place were either missing or loose. With the motor disconnected the damper was found in a half-open position, roughly two to three o'clock, rather than a twelve o'clock position.
Appellants' expert testified that the damper had been disconnected [w]ithin a couple hours of the incident.” He further testified that the damper's half-open position produced decreased draft, and was thus one of the contributing causes of the carbon monoxide production.
The day after the incident occurred, SCSU's Police Department measured carbon monoxide levels in the dormitory rooms. The results established the presence of the gas, but only in the immediate vicinity of the water heater. [3] Police also found carbon monoxide levels on the outside of the building across from the water heater room. Appellants' expert testified that carbon monoxide could have spread throughout the building through the ventilation system. However, none of Appellants' experts did any testing on SCSU's ventilation to verify their theories. Additionally, one of their experts testified he could not opine that it was more probable than not that carbon monoxide spread throughout the building.
The amended complaint alleges six causes of action against Honeywell, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, tortious interference with contract, product liability and breach of warranty claims. After a lengthy discovery, Honeywell moved for summary judgment on all claims. The trial court granted Honeywell's motion. This appeal follows.
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the conclusions and inferences to be drawn from the facts are undisputed.” McClanahan v. Richland County Council, 350 S.C. 433, 437, 567 S.E.2d 240, 242 (2002). Additionally, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 438, 567 S.E.2d at 242.
To establish a product liability claim under both negligence and strict liability theories, a plaintiff must show (1) that he was injured by the product; (2) that the product, at the time of the accident, was in essentially the same condition as when it left the hands of the defendant; and (3) that the injury occurred because the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. Allen v. Long Mfg. NC, Inc., 332 S.C. 422, 426, 505 S.E.2d 354, 356 (Ct. App. 1998). Under a negligence theory, a plaintiff must additionally demonstrate that the defendant seller or manufacturer failed to exercise due care with respect to safety in the product's design. Id. at 426-27, 505 S.E.2d at 356.
Appellants first assert that Honeywell's M892 was defective due to a flaw in its design. Honeywell defends on the ground that, as the component manufacturer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial