Pignone v. Santa Anita Mfg. Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1983
• Citation: 457 N.E.2d 642,17 Mass. App. Ct. 944
• Parties: David PIGNONE v. SANTA ANITA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 642

457 N.E.2d 642

17 Mass.App.Ct. 944

David PIGNONE v.SANTA ANITA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Middlesex.

Argued Nov. 17, 1983.

Decided Dec. 13, 1983.

Richard E. Bachman, Boston (Jerry E. Benezra, Melrose, with him), for Santa Anita Mfg. Corp.

Richard K. Donahue, Lowell, for Victor Equipment Co.

Earle C. Cooley, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before DREBEN, KASS and WARNER, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The plaintiff was injured when a hydraulic cylinder manufactured by Victor Equipment Company(Victor) failed, and the truck tailgate lift, manufactured by Santa Anita Manufacturing Corporation(Santa Anita), on which he was standing, collapsed.Both defendants appeal from judgments for the plaintiff entered after the jury, in answers to special questions, found that each was negligent (Santa Anita 15%--Victor 80% ¹) and that there was a causal relationship between the negligence and the plaintiff's injuries.They also appeal from the denials of motions for a new trial.Santa Anita also appeals from the judgment against it on its cross claim against Victor, and from denials of its motions to alter and amend the judgment and for a new trial.

1.There was no error in the denial in the case in chief of the defendants' motions for directed verdicts and for judgments n.o.v.The case was submitted to the jury on a theory of negligence.We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether "anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff."Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass. 341, 343, 280 N.E.2d 179(1972)."Usually 'the question of negligence is one of fact for the jury.Only when no rational view of the evidence warrants a finding that the defendant was negligent may the issue be taken from the jury' "(citations omitted).Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47, 56, 449 N.E.2d 331(1983), quoting fromZezuski v. Jenny Mfg. Co., 363 Mass. 324, 327, 293 N.E.2d 875(1973).The standard to which the defendants are held is that of ordinary, reasonably prudent manufacturers in like circumstances.Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass. 633, 643, 378 N.E.2d 964(1978).

There was evidence from the plaintiff's expert (seeWiska v. St. Stanislaus Social Club, Inc., 7 Mass.App. 813, 821, 390 N.E.2d 1133[1979] ), and others from which the jury could find that the hydraulic cylinder, which failed and caused the tailgate lift on which the plaintiff was standing to fall to the ground, was negligently designed or negligently manufactured, or both, by Victor.On the question of negligent design, there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to consider " 'the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.' "Back v. Wickes Corp., supra, 375 Mass. at 642, 378 N.E.2d 964, quoting fromBarker v. Lull Engr. Co., 20 Cal.3d 413, 431, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443(1978).SeeSmith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620, 624, 377 N.E.2d 954(1978);Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874, 881, 384 N.E.2d 1188(1978);McLeod v. White Motor Corp., 9 Mass.App. 132, 135-136, 399 N.E.2d 890(1980).The opinions of the plaintiff's expert did not rest on speculation but on adequate evidentiary support.SeeCarey v. General Motors Corp., 377 Mass. 736, 741, 387 N.E.2d 583(1979);Gynan v. Jeep Corp., 13 Mass.App. 504, 509, 434 N.E.2d 688(1982).Victor's argument that there may not be a finding of negligent design without evidence of industry standards is without merit.While evidence of industry standards may be relevant and useful, it is not essential and, in any event, it is not conclusive.SeeTorre v. Harris-Seybold Co., 9 Mass.App. 660, 671-673, 677, 404 N.E.2d 96(1980).See alsoThe T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737, 740(2d Cir.1932), cert. denied, sub nom.Eastern Transp. Co. v. Northern Barge Corp., 287 U.S. 662, 53 S.Ct. 220, 77 L.Ed. 571(1932).

There was ample evidence from the plaintiff's expert and others, with respect to the manner in which the cylinder had been assembled and welded, from which the jury could find that the hydraulic cylinder had been negligently manufactured by Victor.It was not necessary to such a finding that there be evidence of industry standards of manufacture.

There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that it was more probable than not that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of Victor.SeeCarey v. General Motors Corp., supra, 377 Mass. at 740, 387 N.E.2d 583.Victor's argument that the evidence established intervening negligence, an argument not made to the trial judge (seeUloth v. City Tank Corp., supra376 Mass. at 883, 384 N.E.2d 1188), is without merit.

There was evidence from which the jury could find that Santa Anita was negligent in failing adequately to test the hydraulic cylinder which it installed in the tailgate lift manufactured by it.The stress test which Santa Anita did use would not necessarily detect a defective weld.There was expert testimony that a nondestructive ultrasonic examination, which had been in use since 1948 and was known to Santa Anita's president at the time of manufacture of the cylinder, would detect such a defect.As in the case against Victor, the absence of evidence of industry standards is not controlling.SeeTorre v. Harris-Seybold Co., supra9 Mass.App. at 677, 404 N.E.2d 96, and cases cited.The jury could consider the totality of the circumstances and conclude that the failure to use the ultrasonic test was unreasonable.SeeSieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., 149 F.2d 98, 100(3d Cir.1945), aff'd328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099(1946).

It was also for the jury to determine the adequacy of the warning notice provided by Santa Anita.Santa Anita knew that drivers rode on the tailgate lifts and that there would be a collapse if the hydraulic cylinder failed.The warning was, at best, ambiguous.SeeMcLeod v. White Motors Corp., supra9 Mass.App. at 136, 399 N.E.2d 890;Fiorentino v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 11 Mass.App. 428, ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 416, 422, 416 N.E.2d 998, 1003;Kalivas v. A.J. Felz Co., 15 Mass.App. 482, 487-488, 446 N.E.2d 726(1983).

There was sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between Santa Anita's negligence and the plaintiff's...