Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C7-88-756,C7-88-756 |
| Citation | 432 N.W.2d 448 |
| Parties | Gary L. SARTORI and Susan Sartori, Respondents, v. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. OGLEBAY NORTON TACONITE COMPANY, Respondent. John NELSON and Candy Nelson, Respondents, v. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. OGLEBAY NORTON TACONITE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A crane permanently installed as part of a mining operation crusher building constitutes an "improvement to real property" under Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980).
2. Minn.R.Civ.P. 24.04 (1988) does not require notification of the Minnesota Attorney General by a party challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute when the question arises on certification from a United States District Court.
3. Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980) does not violate the due process clause (art. 1, § 7) or the remedies clause (art. 1, § 8) of the Minnesota Constitution.
Anthony Downs, Steven Schneider, Duluth, for appellant.
Thomas R. Thibodeau, Duluth, for Oglebay Taconite.
J. Cuever Richards, Virginia, for John Nelson.
Duane E. Arndt, Minneapolis, for Gary Sartori.
Peter Riley, Minneapolis, amicus curiae, for Minnesota Trial Lawyers Assoc.
Eric J. Magnuson, Minneapolis, for Minnesota Defense Lawyers.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
The United States District Court, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 480.061 (1986), certified the following questions to this court:
1. Whether the equipment at issue in these cases constitutes an "improvement to real property" within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980); and
2. Whether application to these cases of the 15-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980) is an unconstitutional violation of the remedies clause (art. 1, § 8), and of the due process clause (art. 1, § 7) of the Minnesota Constitution.
In its order dated March 30 and filed April 4, 1988, the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fifth Division, specified the following facts giving rise to the certified questions herein:
Plaintiffs in these matters, Gary L. Sartori and John Nelson, were injured on December 19, 1984, while working in the crusher area of the Thunderbird Mine facility in Eveleth, Minnesota. That facility is owned by third-party defendant Oglebay Norton Taconite Company. The injuries to plaintiffs occurred when the load block 1 from an overhead rail crane designed and manufactured by defendant and third-party plaintiff Harnischfeger Corporation fell into the area where plaintiffs were working.
The overhead rail crane was sold to Oglebay Norton under a proposal dated April 28, 1964, and was shipped to the Thunderbird Mine facility on December 23, 1964. The purchase documents required the crane to be erected by Oglebay Norton. On June 8-10, 1965, an employee of Harnischfeger performed a final checkout of the installation. The overhead rail crane had a shipping weight of 71 tons and a cost at the time of purchase of $80,955. The crane can be dismantled without destroying or tearing down the crusher building. Cranes similar to the one at issue in these cases have been relocated. The crane is listed as "production equipment" on Oglebay Norton's fixed equipment list.
The crane is connected to the crusher building by means of its rail transport system. A system of catwalks and platforms has been erected within the crusher building to facilitate use and maintenance of the crane. These catwalks and platforms are incorporated into the building's design. There are two hoist mechanisms on the crane. The main hoist has a lifting distance of 113 feet and a lifting capacity of 80 tons. The auxiliary hoist has a lifting distance of 150 feet and a lifting capacity of 15 tons.
The crane is equipped with two "limit switches" designed to prevent "overtravel" when hoisting, the geared limit switch and the HB limit switch. The limit switches stop the hoisting action of the crane, thus establishing an upper limit for load block travel. The geared limit switch would normally be activated before the HB limit switch. At the time of the accident, only the HB limit switch was operational. The geared limit switch had been disconnected about ten years earlier by employees of Oglebay Norton because of problems experienced with its use.
Oglebay Norton did not have a continuing maintenance or inspection contract with Harnischfeger. Rather, Harnischfeger provided assistance to Oglebay Norton as needed and when called. On those occasions, Harnischfeger's service representative conducted inspections and submitted field service reports making recommendatons to Oglebay Norton. Oglebay Norton was then free to perform the recommended work itself or to request assistance from Harnischfeger.
In November 1984, Oglebay Norton requested that Harnischfeger send a service representative to its facility. The request was made because Oglebay Norton had experienced a bearing problem on a drum that is part of the small hook. 2 The crane inspection report indicated that the service representative had adjusted a component of the brakes. His report noted that the condition of the limit switches was "o.k." and that the general condition of the crane was satisfactory.
At the time of the accident, plaintiffs Nelson and Sartori were in the crusher cavity working on replacement of the crusher's concaves. 3 The crane had been used to lift equipment into the crusher cavity. Immediately before the accident, it became clear that additional equipment was needed from a storage area. The crane operator raised the load hook to enable it to clear certain catwalks. As the load hook was rising, the operator turned his attention away. 4 At that point the HB limit switch failed, causing the cable on the load hook to break. As a result, the load block fell into the crusher cavity. Plaintiffs Sartori and Nelson were both seriously injured.
The allegations against Harnischfeger, as reflected in plaintiffs' amended complaints, are as follows:
1. Defendant Harnischfeger negligently designed, manufactured and tested the crane, failed to give warnings as to the dangers involved in the use of the crane, and failed to give adequate instructions with respect to the use of the crane;
2. Defendant Harnischfeger breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose 3. Defendant Harnischfeger designed, manufactured and distributed the crane in a condition that was defective and unreasonably dangerous to users;
4. Defendant Harnischfeger negligently and carelessly inspected the crane at various times, including November 1984. Defendant Harnischfeger has denied all of the allegations asserted in the amended complaints.
This matter came before the court on defendant and third-party plaintiff Harnischfeger's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the overhead rail crane in question constitutes an improvement to real property within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.051. It is Harnischfeger's position that 18 1/2 years passed between completion of the installation on June 8-10, 1965, and the injuries to plaintiffs on December 19, 1984. Harnischfeger claims that the passage of more than 15 years since the date of substantial completion of the construction of an improvement to real property bars plaintiffs' claims in all respects.
Plaintiffs contend that the overhead rail crane at issue is not an improvement to real property within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.051 but, if it is, application of the 15-year period of repose set forth in that statute is an unconstitutional violation of the remedies clause of the Minnesota Constitution and of the due process clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980) provides in pertinent part:
Subdivision 1. Except where fraud is involved, no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of the injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, materials, or observation of construction or construction of the improvement to real property or against the owner of the real property more than two years after discovery thereof, nor, in any event shall such a cause of action accrue more than 15 years after substantial completion of the construction. Date of substantial completion shall be determined by the date when construction is sufficiently completed so that the owner or his representative can occupy or use the improvement for the intended purpose.
Nothing in this section shall apply to actions for damages resulting from negligence in the maintenance, operation or inspection of the real property improvement against the owner or other person in possession.
In Pacific Indemnity Company v. Thompson-Yeager, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548 (Minn.1977), we set forth a "common sense interpretation" of the phrase "improvement to real property" which would give "effect to the plain meaning of the words of the statute without resort to technical legal constructions of its terms." Id. at 554. An "improvement to real property" was defined as:
[A] permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs.
Id. (citing Kloster-Madsen, Inc. v. Tafi's Inc., 303 Minn. 59, 63, 226 N.W.2d 603, 607 (1975)).
Minnesota courts have applied this definition in subsequent cases. See Frederickson v. Alton M. Johnson Co., 402 N.W.2d 794, 796-97 (Minn.1987) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, A16-0874
...under the U.S. Constitution." In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig. , 806 N.W.2d 820, 829 (Minn. 2011) (citing Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. , 432 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Minn. 1988) ).13 Appellants argue that a mere interference with their property gives rise to due process protections. We disagree......
-
Minn. Majority v. Individual
...provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to that which is provided by the federal constitution.” Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Minn.1988). ...
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co.
...345, 98 L.Ed.2d 371 (1987); Michigan, O'Brien v. Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich. 1, 299 N.W.2d 336 (1980); Minnesota, Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448 (Minn.1988) and Calder v. City of Crystal, 318 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.1982); Mississippi, Anderson v. Fred Wagner & Roy Anderson, 402 So.......
-
In re Guardianship of Tschumy
...under the Minnesota Constitution are “identical” to the due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Minn.1988).16 When a due process violation is alleged, a court must first determine whether the asserted violation was caused by s......
-
A decision tree takes root in the land of 10,000 lakes: Minnesota's approach to protecting individual rights under both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
...of the defendant would not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Id. (189) Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Minn. (190) See Kahn v. Griffin, 701 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. 2005). Several of the key phrases used in Kahn, most notably "textually identica......