Raney v. Honeywell, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 August 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75-1972,75-1972
• Citation: 540 F.2d 932
• Parties: 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 284 Floyd E. RANEY, Appellee, v. HONEYWELL, INC., a corporation, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 932

540 F.2d 932

1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 284

Floyd E. RANEY, Appellee, v. HONEYWELL, INC., a corporation, Appellant.

No. 75-1972.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1976.

Decided Aug. 16, 1976.

H. Richard Smith, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant; Richard G. Santi of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie & Smith, Des Moines, Iowa, on brief.

Arthur H. Johnson, Fort Dodge, Iowa, for appellee; Thomas J. Bice of Johnson, Burnquist, Erb, Latham & Gibb, Fort Dodge, Iowa, on brief.

Before HEANEY and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and SCHATZ, District Judge. ^*

SCHATZ, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Floyd E. Raney, against the defendant, Honeywell, Inc. The plaintiff was severely injured when LP gas fumes from a furnace exploded. The plaintiff filed a diversity action against Honeywell, the manufacturer of the gas control valve of the furnace, basing his claim on negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability. The trial court ¹ submitted the issue of strict liability to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $540,000.

The plaintiff, an employee of a plumbing and heating business, was working in a vacant house in Livermore, Iowa, on April 17, 1971, when he was injured. The house in question had been used as rental property and had been vacant for some time. On the day before the explosion, workmen were cleaning and painting the house in preparation for a new tenant. About 9 p. m. that night the workmen turned on the gas, which was supplied from an LP tank outside the house, to light the stove. When the workmen left that night they did not turn off the gas from the outside tank. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had been called in to repair a leaking water pipe in the basement of the house and arrived early on the morning of the next day and prepared to solder the water pipe. Because of odors from the fresh paint and some spoiled food, he did not smell the gas, which had been leaking from the furnace, also located in the basement. The gas vapors exploded when the plaintiff lit his propane torch to solder the water pipe, severely burning him. The cause of the explosion was determined to be the accumulation of propane gas which was allowed to escape through the gas control valve of the furnace.

The case was submitted to the jury on the issue of whether the gas control valve had a design defect. The trial judge overruled the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and for judgment n. o. v.

Sufficiency of the Evidence.

The defendant first asserts as error that there was insufficient evidence to submit the strict liability issue of a defect in design to the jury.

The Supreme Court of Iowa has adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort as expressed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 174 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1970). Under those principles a manufacturer may be held liable for injuries to other persons if, among other things, the product was in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous and that defect caused the injuries. If these conditions are satisfied, liability is imposed regardless of the degree of care exercised by the manufacturer. Kleve v. General Motors Corp., 210 N.W.2d 568, 571 (Iowa 1973). The design of a product may make that product defective and unreasonably dangerous. Passwaters v. General Motors Corp., 454 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1974); Schuh v. Fox River Tractor Co., 63 Wis.2d 728, 218 N.W.2d 279 (1974); Friedrich v. Anderson, 191 Neb. 724, 217 N.W.2d 831 (1974). The product must be designed so that it is reasonably safe for uses that are foreseeably probable, whether or not those uses were intended by the manufacturer. Melia v. Ford Motor Co., 534 F.2d 795 (8th Cir. 1976); Hoppe v. Midwest Conveyor Co., 485 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1973); Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259 (8th Cir. 1976) (en banc ).

The gas control valve in question was equipped with a safety device which would stop the flow of gas when the pilot light was off. This device could be overridden by pushing down the knob on the valve and turning it to the "pilot" position. While the knob was in the depressed position gas would flow so that the pilot could be lit. After the pilot was lit, the normal operation called for removing the valve from the depressed position and turning it to the "on" position, thus engaging the safety device again. In order to prevent the knob from being depressed and being placed in the "on" position, which allowed gas to escape if the pilot light was not on, the defendant had placed small metal protrusions or mechanical stops under the knob to guide it in its proper operation. When the valve in question was inspected after the explosion, it was depressed in the "on" position, thus allowing gas to escape when the pilot light was not on. The mechanical stops had been bent so that the knob could be placed in the "on" position and would remain in this position. There was no evidence that tools were used to force the knob into that position, a valid inference arising that an unknown individual had turned the knob to that position using only his hands.

The gas escaped from the valve because the design of the valve permitted it to be turned to a position which allowed the safety device to be overridden. There is no question that this design created a risk of harm. The question is whether this risk was "unreasonable". The answer requires a balancing of the probability and seriousness of harm against the costs of taking precautions. Cooley v. Quick Supply Co., 221 N.W.2d 763, 769 (Iowa 1974). See also, Melia v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 534 F.2d 795. Relevant factors to be considered include the availability of alternative designs, the cost and feasibility of adopting alternative designs, and the frequency or infrequency of injury resulting from the design. Hoppe v. Midwest Conveyor Co., supra, 485 F.2d at 1202. The plaintiff's expert witness testified that this danger could have been reduced or eliminated by one of three rather simple design changes in the valve: stronger mechanical stops, a double mechanical stop, a plastic knob which would break if too much force were applied to turn the knob while still in a depressed position.

The test for evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence is as follows:

(I)n passing upon the motion for judgment, the trial court and this court are (1) to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the parties prevailing with the jury; (2) to assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the plaintiffs; (3) to assume as proved all facts which plaintiffs' evidence tends to prove; (4) to give the plaintiffs the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts proved; and (5) to deny the motion if, reviewing the evidence in this light, reasonable men could differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from it.

Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 278 F.2d 586, 596 (8th Cir. 1960).

From a careful review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to permit a jury to decide whether the gas control valve had a defect in design.

Evidentiary Rulings.

The defendant's next assignments of error relate to the alleged erroneous admission of evidence. The defendant first complains of the evidence relating to the presence of a loose screw in the gas control valve. After the explosion, it was noted that the chamber of the valve contained a loose screw which rattled when the valve was moved or shaken. There was no evidence that the loose screw had anything to do with the explosion. The plaintiff's expert witness testified before the jury that the presence of the loose screw was unrelated to the cause of the explosion. The defendant had requested the screw be removed before the valve was offered in evidence or shown to the jury. The trial judge admitted the valve containing the screw but instructed the jury that the valve was admitted to show its condition at the time of the explosion and that the jury was to disregard the loose screw because it had nothing to do with the cause of the explosion. Here, the trial court was called upon to exercise its discretion. Control Data Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 421 F.2d 323, 326 (8th Cir. 1970). Clearly it was proper to admit the gas control valve in the condition in which it was found. E. g., Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975); McCormick on Evidence, § 212 (2d Ed. 1972); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 774. The trial judge committed no abuse of discretion when he admitted the valve for this limited purpose and when he so instructed the jury. Rule 105, Federal Rules of Evidence. The defendant, however, argues that the jury verdict resulted from the prejudice from the loose screw rather than from a design defect. This argument asks us to speculate that the jury disregarded the evidence and the clear admonition given by the trial court. This we cannot do. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Felgenhauer, 168 F.2d 12, 17 (8th Cir. 1948).

The defendant next complains of the admission of certain evidence concerning a prior case involving a Honeywell valve. The plaintiff's expert witness, Professor Nelson, testified on direct examination that he had been called upon in the past to examine and evaluate a number of gas control valves by a number of clients, including Honeywell. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney, referring to the witness's prior experience in the field of gas explosion, asked which company's valves caused the most trouble in this regard. The witness named a company other than Honeywell. On re-direct examination the witness was permitted to testify over objection that he also had experience with a Honeywell valve of similar design that caused a gas explosion. The defendant asserts prejudicial error in the admission of this testimony....