Sharp ex rel. Gordon v. Case Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2559,96-2559 |
| Citation | 227 Wis.2d 1,595 N.W.2d 380 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,565 Steven Joel SHARP, a minor, by Corey L. GORDON, his Guardian ad Litem, and Randolph Sharp and Betty Sharp, individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CASE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Ralph A. Weber, Sandra L. Botcher and Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, S.C., Milwaukee; Brian G. Cahill, Racine; Andrew L. Frey and Mayer, Brown & Platt, New York, NY; James C. Schroeder and Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, IL and oral argument by Andrew L. Frey.
For the plaintiffs-respondents there was a brief by Daniel W. Hildebrand and DeWitt, Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison and William H. Manning, David W. McKenna, Howard R. Orenstein and Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P, Minneapolis, MN and oral argument by William H. Manning.
Case Corporation seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, Sharp v. Case Corporation, No. 96-2559, unpublished slip op., 1997 WL 757498 (Wis.Ct.App. Dec. 10, 1997), which affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Racine County, Emily S. Mueller, Judge.
¶2 The jury awarded $6,309,611.80 in damages to Steven Joel Sharp, a minor residing and working in the state of Oregon, for injuries he suffered while clearing hay from a baler that was attached to a tractor manufactured in Wisconsin in 1972 by Case Corporation. The jury awarded Steven Sharp $2 million for punitive damages and awarded his parents, Randolph and Betty Sharp, $22,490 damages for parental loss of society and companionship. After taking into account Steven Sharp's contributory negligence, the circuit court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court judgment.
¶3 Case Corporation challenges the court of appeals decision on four grounds. First, it argues that the court of appeals erred in refusing to apply the products liability statute of repose of the state of Oregon, which Case Corporation asserts would bar this action as untimely. After reviewing the Oregon case law, we conclude that Oregon's product liability statute of repose is not applicable to a post-sale warning claim such as the one involved in the present case. Under Wisconsin law this action is timely.
¶4 Second, Case Corporation argues that the court of appeals erred in refusing to apply the law of the state of Oregon that Case Corporation asserts limits an award of non-economic damages to $500,000. We conclude that because Oregon courts are not applying the statutory limits on non-economic damages, this court should not apply the Oregon statutory limits in this case, even if we were to decide, which we do not, that this law is applicable in this case.
¶5 Third, Case Corporation contends that the court of appeals erred in refusing to invalidate the jury verdict on the grounds that it contains inherent and fatal inconsistencies. We conclude that the verdict is valid under Greiten v. LaDow, 70 Wis.2d 589, 235 N.W.2d 677 (1975), which allows recovery for the negligent design of a product even though the product is not unreasonably dangerous in a strict product liability sense. We decline Case Corporation's invitation to overrule Greiten. We further conclude that the jury finding that the product was not unreasonably dangerous is consistent with the jury finding that after manufacture and sale of the product Case Corporation learned of a defect posing a serious hazard, which originated and was unforeseeable at the time of manufacture, and yet it failed to exercise due care in warning customers of the danger.
¶6 Fourth, Case Corporation argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify submitting the question of punitive damages to the jury. We conclude, as a matter of law, that the evidence presented warranted a conclusion to a reasonable certainty that Case Corporation acted with the requisite "outrageous" conduct and that therefore the question of punitive damages was properly submitted to the jury.
¶7 The facts are undisputed for purposes of this review. Additional facts pertinent to particular issues will be set forth later in the opinion.
¶8 On August 22, 1992, 17-year-old Steven Sharp, a resident of the state of Oregon, was injured while working on a farm in Richland, Oregon. At the time of his injury, Sharp was operating a Hesston Model 5800 hay baler attached to a Case International 970 diesel tractor and operated by the tractor's power takeoff (PTO ) drive shaft, which is run directly from the tractor's diesel engine by hydraulically operated clutches. The lever controls for operating the PTO drive shaft are located in the cab of the tractor.
¶9 As Sharp was driving the tractor and baling hay, he could hear that the hay was not feeding properly into the baler. Because he assumed that loose hay was jamming the baler and needed to be cleared, he powered down the tractor engine and pushed the tractor's PTO control lever rearward, stopping the PTO drive shaft and shutting off the baler. Sharp got down from the tractor, walked back to the baler and began clearing the loose hay that had gathered in front of the rollers. As he reached in to pull out some of the hay, the baler suddenly self-started, drawing in Sharp's hands and slowly amputating both of his arms just below the elbow.
¶10 At the time of Sharp's injury, the tractor was owned by his employer, Dwight Saunders, who had purchased the tractor in 1979 secondhand from a farm implement dealer in the state of Oregon. The tractor had been manufactured in 1972 in Wisconsin by Case Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Racine, Wisconsin.
¶11 On February 12, 1993, Steven Sharp and his parents, Randolph and Betty Sharp, filed a complaint against Case Corporation in Wisconsin alleging several theories of liability. They claimed that Case Corporation should be found liable because the tractor was defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the manufacturing plant; that the tractor was negligently designed, tested, manufactured and assembled; that Case Corporation negligently failed to issue adequate warnings; that Case Corporation negligently failed to recall the defective tractor; and that Case Corporation failed to issue warnings after it was put on notice of the self-start defect.
¶12 On April 19, 1995, Case Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the Oregon eight-year statute of repose for products liability should be applied to bar the Wisconsin suit. The circuit court denied the motion for summary judgment, citing Leverence v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 158 Wis.2d 64, 462 N.W.2d 218 (Ct.App.1990), for the proposition that the timeliness of the action is governed by the borrowing statute, Wis. Stat. § 893.07, and that the borrowing statute does not borrow another state's statute of repose.
¶13 On February 20, 1996, a jury trial was commenced. Among other facts, it was established at trial that Case Corporation had on at least one prior occasion received notice of an injury caused by the tractor's self-start defect. That similar injury was sustained in 1985 by a Tennessee farmer whose arm was horribly mangled in a hay baler being run off of a Case 970 tractor by way of a PTO drive shaft. The accident report received by Case for that injury stated that the PTO drive shaft had suddenly and without warning become engaged.
¶14 The jury found that Case Corporation had been negligent in issuing the warnings accompanying the tractor at the time of sale and that Case Corporation had breached its duty to issue post-sale warnings, thereby causing Sharp's injuries. 1 In response to a special verdict question, the jury answered that Case Corporation's conduct was outrageous and assessed punitive damages against Case Corporation in the amount of $2 million.
¶15 Both Case Corporation and the plaintiffs brought post-verdict motions. In its ruling on the post-verdict motions, the circuit court granted entry of judgment consistent with the jury verdict, and Case Corporation appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court judgment in its entirety.
¶16 The first issue presented by Case Corporation is whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to apply the Oregon statute of repose applicable to products liability actions, 2 which Case Corporation asserts would bar the action as untimely.
¶17 The choice of applicable law is a question of law, which this court determines independent of but benefiting from the analyses of the circuit court and court of appeals. Wis. Stat. § 902.02(3) (1997-98). The threshold determination in a conflict of laws case is whether a genuine conflict exists between Wisconsin law and the law of the other state. Gavers v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 118 Wis.2d 113, 115, 345 N.W.2d 900 (Ct.App.1984). If the laws of the two states are the same, we apply Wisconsin law.
¶18 Case Corporation contends that because the tractor in issue was first sold in 1972, any liability on its part for Sharp's 1992 injuries was precluded by the eight-year limitation in the Oregon statute of repose. The Oregon statute of repose provides that "a product liability civil action shall be commenced not later than eight years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption." Or.Rev.Stat. § 30.905(1) (1997). 3 Wisconsin has no statute of repose in product liability cases.
¶19 The Sharps argue that Oregon's statute of repose would not bar their claims in the present case because Case Corporation's negligent post-sale acts and omissions fall outside the Oregon statute of repose. They rely on Erickson Air-Crane v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or. 281, 735 P.2d 614, 618 (1987), in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shurr v. A.R. Siegler, Inc.
...437. It does not demonstrate "an indifference on the person's part to the consequences of his or her actions." Sharp v. Case Corp., 227 Wis.2d 1, 21, 595 N.W.2d 380 (1999). Thus, plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages on this I turn now to the explosion proof testing issue. Crane c......
-
Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co.
...1179, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 657 (Cal.Ct.App.1998). Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction we have found with a contrary view. Sharp v. Case Corp., 227 Wis.2d 1, 595 N.W.2d 380 (1999). 10. Again, the jury was charged that for purposes of this case, the cruise control system included the braking 11. See......
-
Godoy ex rel. Gramling v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...(applying Wisconsin law); • Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, 235 Wis.2d 325, 611 N.W.2d 659; • Sharp ex rel. Gordon v. Case Corp., 227 Wis.2d 1, 595 N.W.2d 380 (1999); • Bittner v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 194 Wis.2d 122, 533 N.W.2d 476 (1995); • Westphal v. E.I. du Pont de Nemo......
-
Wenke v. Gehl Co.
...the issue of Wis. Stat. § 893.07's applicability to foreign statutes of repose was raised before this court was in Sharp v. Case Corp., 227 Wis.2d 1, 595 N.W.2d 380 (1999). However, we disposed of that case without reaching the question of whether Leverence correctly decided this issue, as ......
-
CHAPTER § 9.02 Common Defenses
...of repose for product-liability actions based on negligent failure to warn). State Courts: Wisconsin: Sharp ex rel. Gordan v. Case Corp., 595 N.W.2d 380, 384-85 (Wis. 1999) (Oregon's 8-year statute of repose for product-liability claims did not apply to post-sale claim for failure to warn).......