SanSom v. Crown Equip. Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:10–cv–0958. |
| Parties | Christopher SANSOM and Maria Sansom, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION; Crown Lift Trucks, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Eric P. Reif, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Richard E. Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC., New Castle, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher G. Mavros, J. David Byerly, Thomas M. Hinchey, William J. Conroy, William A. Rubert, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, P.C., Wayne, PA, for Defendants.
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Crown Equipment Corporation and Crown Equipment Corporation d/b/a Crown Lift Trucks (collectively “Crown”). ECF No. 63. The Court has considered Crown's (1) Motion, (2) Concise Statement of Material Facts, (3) supporting Brief, and (4) submitted exhibits. ECF Nos. 63, 63–1 through 63–26, 64, 65. Plaintiffs Christopher Sansom and Maria Sansom (collectively “the Sansoms”) filed a Response to Crown's Concise Statement of Material Facts with supporting exhibits and a Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court has also considered, as well as Crown's Reply to these documents. ECF Nos. 69, 70, 70–1 through 70–24, 71 through 75, 78, 79. The Court heard the parties' positions at oral argument and ordered supplemental briefing to address recent developments in Pennsylvania state law that bear directly on this case, which the parties have completed. ECF Nos. 84, 85. Therefore, this matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, Crown's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the following facts are not in dispute. The Sansoms, a married couple, bring a products liability action against Crown, alleging that Mr. Sansom suffered severe injuries resulting from his operation of a defectively designed pallet truck distributed by Crown and that, as a result of Mr. Sansom's injuries, Mrs. Sansom has been deprived of the companionship of her husband.1 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 11, 14, 16, 18. The pallet truck that is the subject of Sansoms' design-defect claim is a Crown Lift Truck Model 30–SP–48TT–360 (“Stockpicker”), serial number 1A182447. Pls.' Resp. to Defs.' Concise Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 80–81, ECF No. 69 ); Defs.' Resp. to Pls.' Concise Statement of Additional Facts ¶¶ 80–81, ECF No. 79 ).
The Stockpicker's uses, specifications, and safety features
The Stockpicker is a powered vehicle that allows its operator to retrieve items from high-level shelving units, such as those common to industrial warehouses. McDermitt Dep. 21:1–6; Coffin Dep. 12:25–13:8. It can also serve as an elevated observation platform from which an operator of the Stockpicker can view inventory that is stored on shelves above eye level. McDermitt Dep. 21: 16–23.
To use the Stockpicker, the operator stands on a 4 foot wide by 2.25 foot deep operator's platform (the “platform”). Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 84; Defs,' Resp. Facts ¶ 84. Two forks are connected to one side of the platform (the “load end”) and a wooden pallet can be suspended between the two forks (the “load pallet”). Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 85; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 85. Upon the load pallet, a Stockpicker operator may place any number of items, whereby he “picks” inventory and lowers it to the ground from a warehouse's shelves. McDermitt Dep. 21:1–6; Coffin Dep. 12:25–13:8. To that end, the platform, forks, and load pallet all elevate together to a maximum height of 30 feet so that the operator can reach inventory stored at height. Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 84; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 84.
Directly opposite the load end sits the Stockpicker's control panel, which occupies that entire side of the platform. Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 85; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 85. Foldable gates stand on the remaining two, parallel sides of the platform. Crown's Concise Statement Material Facts ¶ 8, ECF No. 64 (hereinafter Defs.' Stat. Facts); Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 8. These gates are interconnected to the traction system and must therefore be in place before the operator can drive the truck. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶ 8; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 8. No gate is present on the load end of the platform, nor are there gates or other railings surrounding the load pallet assembly. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 1 (image), 9; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 9.
For fall protection, the Stockpicker comes equipped at the time of purchase with a “medium size belt,” which is adjustable to between 36 inches and 44 inches, and an eight (8) foot long non-retractable lanyard. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 11, 17; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 11, 90; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 90. An operator secures the belt around his waist, connecting one end of the lanyard to the belt and attaching the lanyard's opposite end to the Stockpicker's “mast.” Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶ 12; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 12. Both the Stockpicker's operator's manual and a conspicuous sign attached to the Stockpicker itself inform potential operators that failure to wear the safety belt could result in injury or death. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 19–20; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 18–22. Beyond the standard “medium” safety belt, Crown can provide to its customers, upon request, with larger and smaller belt sizes, as well as various other belt configurations, including full body harnesses and self-retracting lanyards. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 10, 28; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 26–28.
Crown designed the subject Stockpicker's belt and lanyard system to meet domestic industry standards. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶ 17; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 17. Crown also distributes stockpickers to other parts of the world, and these models may possess different safety features. Of import to the parties' arguments on summary judgment are two particular Crown stockpicker types; a European model and an Australian model. The European version, which Crown has manufactured and sold since the early 1970's, comes equipped with a fully enclosed operator's platform; specifically, a “rear lifting gate” spans the load end, which eliminates the full, open space between the load pallet and the platform. Pls.' Stat, Facts ¶¶ 94, 96; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶¶ 95, 96. The Australian model, which the Sansoms' expert, Mr. George Wharton, P.E., examined, also possessed a gate across the load end and was further described as a “North American truck to which rear gates had been added for shipment to Australia.” Wharton Prelim. Exp. Rep, 12–13.
Mr. Sansom's Accident and crown's Reports of Other Stockpicker Accidents
On the day of his accident, November 29, 2007, Mr. Sansom was using the subject Crown Stockpicker to review inventory for his employer, Great Lakes Cold Storage (“Great Lakes”). He admits to not wearing the safety belt and lanyard, asserting that the only belt available would not fit over the bulky clothing worn by Great Lakes' employees, necessary to withstand the freezing warehouse conditions. Defs.' Stat Facts ¶ 44; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 43–44. Shortly after 1:00 p.m., Mr. Sansom stood on the operator's platform at an elevation of 15 feet while he checked on a warehouse shelf that contained a load of soup. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 49–50; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 48–52. The Stockpicker stood parallel to the shelving rack at a distance of approximately four (4) inches.
Mr. Sansom then observed another employee driving a different piece of machinery between the same aisles where he stood on the Stockpicker. Realizing that the other employee did not see him, Mr. Sansom braced himself for a potential collision by holding onto a portion of the Stockpicker comprised of steel wire mesh 2 with one hand while repeatedly honking the Stockpicker's horn with the other. Pls. Stat. Facts ¶¶ 53–57. The two vehicles collided, and the force of the impact threw Mr. Sansom from the platform. His body travelled through the open load end of the operator's platform, hit the load pallet, flipped over the pallet's edge, and landed on the floor. See Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 55–56; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 53–57. Mr. Sansom was knocked unconscious and sustained a fracture in his right leg; the severity of the fracture later necessitated the partial amputation of this leg. Defs.' Stat. Facts ¶ 57; Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 53–57.
Crown produced 125 accident reports during discovery that detailed circumstances where other operators suffered injury while using its stockpickers equipped with the belt and lanyard system. Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 107–08; See Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 107.3 These reports covered the years between 1990 and 2007 and contain evidence of eight (8) fatalities and numerous head injuries, skull fractures, back injuries and broken bones. Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶¶ 107–08; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶¶ 108. The reports showed that in 65% of recorded falls the operators were not wearing the belt and lanyard. Pls.' Stat. Facts ¶ 110; Defs.' Resp. Facts ¶ 107. However, even when the operator was reportedly connected to the tether system, the documentation illustrates that serious injuries, and even fatalities, could and did occur. See, e.g., Pls.' Stat. Facts, Ex. F. 59–60, 67, 79–80.
The purpose of summary judgment is “to dispose of all factually unsupported claims and defenses.” Omnipoint Comm. Enter., L.P. v. Newtown Tp., 219 F.3d 240, 242 (3d Cir.2000). Summary judgment is appropriately granted in favor of the moving party if the movant can demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, such that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). Accordingly, to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must establish that there is indeed a genuine issue of material fact, which requires the action to proceed to a trier of fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585–86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynn v. Yamaha Golf–Car Co.
...observed, Pennsylvania products liability law may be fairly seen as being in a state of profound uncertainty. See Sansom v. Crown Equipment Corp., 880 F.Supp.2d 648, 2:10–cv–0958, 2012 WL 3027989 (W.D.Pa. July 24, 2012). The current state of the law in this area provides little clarity to c......
-
Papurello v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...must predict how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would resolve these matters of state law. See, e.g., Sansom v. Crown Equip. Corp., 880 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 (W.D.Pa.2012) (citing Holmes, 598 F.3d at 118 ). “In predicting how the [Pennsylvania Supreme Court] would decide [these state law issues......
-
Rowland v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
...1 and 2 of the Third Restatement as the controlling analysis for strict products liability claims, see Sansom v. Crown Equip. Corp., 880 F.Supp.2d 648, 653–56 (W.D.Pa.2012), that court has plainly not yet adopted the Third Restatements specific test for manufacturer liability for harm cause......
-
Rowland v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.
...1 and 2 of the Third Restatement as the controlling analysis for strict products liability claims, see Sansom v. Crown Equip. Corp., 880 F.Supp.2d 648, 653–56 (W.D.Pa.2012), that court has plainly not yet adopted the Third Restatements specific test for manufacturer liability for harm cause......