Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina
| Decision Date | 05 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1987,97-1987 |
| Citation | 719 So.2d 312 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1841, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,324 SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC., and English Seel & Smith, Inc. f/k/a Jensen-english & Associates, Inc., Appellants/Cross-appellees, v. Phillip R. MEDINA, Appellee/Cross-appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kubicki Draper and Angela C. Flowers, Miami, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Fogel Rubin & Fogel, Terry L. Fogel and Scott L. Rubin, Miami, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ.
The defendants, Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. [Siemens] and English Seel & Smith f/k/a Jensen-English & Associates, Inc. [English], appeal from an adverse final judgment and from an adverse cost judgment. The plaintiff, Phillip R. Medina, also cross-appeals from the final judgment. We reverse.
Phillip Medina, a journeyman electrician, was severely injured while working for City Electric in Key West. Medina had climbed onto a piece of equipment called a three-phase voltage regulator. A three-phase voltage regulator is a large piece of equipment designed to regulate the flow of electricity in a substation. The regulator is shaped like a rectangular box and measures 6.3 feet by 4.6 feet, and is 9-feet tall. The voltage regulator was not in line (energized) at the time of the accident.
Medina was trying to retrieve some tools or parts that had been left there the preceding day. While on top of the regulator, Medina came in contact with 13,800 volts of electricity. He was electrified and his body was found on top of some adjacent radiator coils. Medina suffered severe burns and other injuries.
Medina filed a two-count complaint against Siemens, the manufacturer of the voltage regulator, and against English, a Siemens' representative. Count I generally alleged that the defendants were negligent in designing, manufacturing, and testing the surface of the top of the regulator. Count II alleged that the defendants were strictly liable because the regulator was defective and unreasonably dangerous as a result of the conduct alleged in Count I.
Medina's theory of how the accident happened was presented through the testimony of an accident reconstruction expert. The accident reconstructionist opined that Medina probably slipped and fell on moisture or water that had accumulated in a depression on the top of the regulator. The expert further testified that when Medina fell, he probably threw his arms up in the air to try to regain his balance and his wrist or hand came in contact with an energized bus plate.
As proof of Siemens' negligence in designing, manufacturing and testing the surface of the top of the voltage regulator, Medina presented the testimony of an expert safety analyst. The safety analyst opined that by designing and manufacturing the surface of the top of the regulator without non-skid paint and by failing to perform safety tests on the surface material, Siemens did not act as a reasonably prudent manufacturer. The safety analyst further opined that, besides having a duty to provide an adequate non-skid surface on the top of the regulator, Siemens, as a reasonably prudent manufacturer, also had a duty to warn Medina of the foreseeable danger of standing on top of the regulator and falling off.
In order to advance its case against English, Medina presented the testimony of the City Electric representative who was involved in purchasing the voltage regulator. He stated that he received documents regarding the regulator through English, including the printed specifications, and that English had acted as a conduit for information. He also testified that the regulator was purchased directly from Siemens, that the contract for the purchase of the regulator was executed by City Electric and Siemens, and that Siemens had the regulator shipped directly from its factory to City Electric.
At the close of the evidence, Medina moved to amend his pleadings to conform to the evidence presented by the safety analyst and to assert as an additional act of negligence Siemens' failure to warn Medina of the danger of standing on top of the regulator and the possibility of falling off, a danger that Medina argued was not readily apparent to him. Siemens objected to the amendment arguing that manufacturers have no duty to warn users of a product of obvious dangers and that the danger of getting on top of the regulator and falling off was obvious. Nevertheless, the trial court allowed the amendment.
The defendants renewed their prior motions for directed verdict. Specifically, English argued that although there was testimony that someone at English may have crossed out one of the specifications relating to price, there was no evidence presented that showed a causal connection between that change in specification and the alleged design defect in the regulator. The court reserved ruling on English's motion, but denied Siemens' motion.
The jury was charged and retired to deliberate. Thereafter, the jury returned the following verdict:
1. Was there negligence on the part of Siemens Energy & Automation,
Inc. which was a legal cause of loss, injury or damage to Phillip R.
Medina?
YES X NO
-------- --------
2. Was there negligence on the part of English, Seel & Smith, Inc.
which was a legal cause of loss,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veliz v. Rental Service Corp. Usa, Inc.
...Gillman v. Crown Euip. Corp., 1996 WL 464224, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11667 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 9, 1996), and Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina, 719 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), rev. denied, 733 So.2d 516 (Fla.1999), which they argue establish the open and obvious nature of the danger M......
-
WILKINS v. Genzyme Corp.
... ... v. Telecorp Commc'ns, Inc. , 488 F.3d 1, ... 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing ... injuries or damage.” Siemens Energy & ... Automation, Inc. v. Medina , 719 ... ...
-
Devore v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
...as actually being within the distributive chain of the product which caused injury. See Id.; see also Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina, 719 So.2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding that motion for directed verdict should have been granted because defendant acted as a "conduit o......
-
153, United Statescg No. 295280 v. Galioto (In re Complaint of Bos. Boat Iii, LLC)
...danger that someone could fall out of an open basket on a mechanical lift was open and obvious); Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina, 719 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (finding no duty to warn of the obvious danger of standing on top of a nine-foot high piece of equipme......
-
Negligence cases
...causal connection between such condition and the user’s injuries or damage. Source Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. v. Medina , 719 So.2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), rev. denied , 733 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1999). See Also 1. Clark v. Boeing Company , 395 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 2. ......