Virginia Mae Knitz v. Minster Machine Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | 87-LW-0547,L-84-125 |
| Parties | Virginia Mae KNITZ, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. MINSTER MACHINE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Robert Anspach, for appellant.
John Harris, III, for appellee.
In a case that provides a storied past, appellant-defendant Minster Machine Co., filed an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas wherein the trial court journalized the jury's verdict against appellant for a sum totaling $150,000. This case comes before this court a second time and asks review of many issues that must be present when a plaintiff presents a claim and goes to trial on issues of products liability. The parties after a time-consuming performance of their duties seek this court to review the questions of law and evidence which are necessary for the trial court to litigate a cause of action ground in products liability, often referred to, perhaps as a misnomer as strict liability.
The trial court, in its obvious attempt to fulfill its duties sought to break new ground in trying a products liability claim in the state of Ohio. In so doing, the trial court was faced with a variety of legal issues arising from this case's previous expedition to the Ohio Supreme Court wherein the majority of the Supreme Court justices continued to expand the applicable products liability law. Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 460, certiorari denied 459 U.S. 857. In so doing, the Ohio Supreme Court, as then constituted, continued their never ending crusade to protect the rights of the injured party and to fulfill the general policy behind products liability cases, by recognizing " * * * a public interest in human life and safety [which] can best be protected by subjecting the manufacturers of defective products to strict liability in tort when the products cause harm." Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 456, 464-465.
Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court determined that there were genuine issues of fact as to "whether Minster's press design was defective by allowing accidental tripping of the foot pedal control and in failing to provide a point of operation guard when the foot pedal is operative." Knitz, supra, at 467.
Now presented before this court are issues concerning the means by which both plaintiff and defendant must try a claim for defective products design including substantive issues such as the burden of proof and viable defenses for manufacturers, as well as the admissibility of evidence for both parties.®1¯
This case originated from appellee's claim for recompense from appellant, due to bodily injury to her hand, which occurred when, during the course of employment, the ram of a sixty-ton Operable Back Inclinable (OBI) Press, manufactured by Minster Machine Co., activated and, without notice, closed the primary surface plate, and in the process severed appellee's index and middle fingers.
On August 2, 1978, appellee filed a complaint against Minster Machine Company, the manufacturer of the press, alleging that the press was sold in a defective condition which was dangerous to the user of a product." ®2¯ After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted defendant's motion and dismissed the claim precluding recovery under the Supreme Court's decision in Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court, pursuant to a motion to allow certification of the record, heard the case. Tracing the history of the law of products liability in this state and specifically citing to the California Supreme Court decision in Barker v. Lull Engineering Company, Inc. (1978), 143 Cal.Rptr. 223, the court set forth its analysis of the proper legal standard to be applied to cases wherein a party suffered an injury allegedly caused by a design defect in a manufactured product. Reversing the lower court's ruling, the court expanded upon the test for determining when a product was defective. Under the expanded test, the court adopted a risk benefit analysis which was coupled with the previously announced consumer expectation test and, thereby, provided two separate theories by which a plaintiff could proceed to establish that he/she had been injured by a defective product. Since the question concerning the risk-benefit analysis had been unanswered in the lower court, the cause was remanded for further proceedings. Upon remand, the case proceeded to trial under both prongs of the Knitz formulated test.®3¯
The issues at trial concern whether appellant manufactured a defectively designed press; issues raised primarily under the rubric of the risk-benefit analysis. The facts, however, giving rise to appellee's injury are basically uncontradicted.
During the week of August 16, 1976, appellee, Virginia Mae Knitz, was employed as a press operator at Toledo Die and Manufacturing Company (hereinafter referred to as TDM). After initial instructions on the operations of the plant's machinery, appellee began operation of various punch presses. On August 23, 1976, appellee was assigned to operate a sixty-ton OBI Press designed and manufactured by Minster Machine Company (hereinafter referred to as Minster).
The press, like those smaller in size, functioned in such a manner that the power was supplied in bringing two halves of a die together in order to manufacture variously formed items. The top half of the press, was attached to a ram, which, when activated, descended with sixty tons of force onto the bolster plate. The two die halves, when contact was made, shaped metal stock into various pieces. At the completion of one revolution, the ram returns to its original position, several inches above the bolster plate. The press, without interruption, may operate at a rate of approximately eighty revolutions per minute, i.e., said differently, the ram may descend to the bolster plate in three-quarters of one second.
The press, which injured appellee, was delivered to TDM on October 15, 1971. As originally shipped, the press was delivered with a two-hand button tripping device. This device permits activation of the press upon simultaneous depression of two buttons, which are placed at shoulder level above the die ram. The buttons, placed several feet apart, do not permit activation of the press unless both buttons are simultaneously depressed. Thus, activation of the press requires utilization of both hands, thereby preventing the operator from inadvertantly placing his/her hand in the area where the ram descends.
Along with this device, TDM ordered an optional foot pedal tripping device,®4¯ designed and sold by Minster. The device attached to the press, permitted the operator to activate the press' ram by depressing a foot treadle. The operator was not then required to utilize the two-button, tripping device.
After the shipment of the press with the optional foot treadle, TDM installed a pull-back safeguard (possom type). These guards were attached to wrists of the operator and physically pull the operator's hands out of the die area when the ram descended to the bolster plate. Appellee, upon hiring, was briefly instructed in the operation of the presses and the pull-back safeguard.
On August 23, 1976, appellee, while sitting on a stool as was acceptable, was operating the sixty-ton OBI press. The job required her to pile up and place, with her hand, a block piece of metal stock in the space between the die halves. While performing this production run, appellee utilized the foot treadle to activate the ram, and the pull-back guards to provide safety against the erroneous insertion of her hands into the die area. After two hours, appellee, uncomfortable with the stool size, sought out a more comfortably-sized stool. Upon returning to her job station, she noticed that the scrap bin beneath the press had been emptied and the foot treadle had been moved. Appellee, without reattaching her pull-backs or deactivating the press, leaned on the shoulder bolster plate with her right hand, simultaneously attempting to manipulate the foot treadle with her foot into a more advantageous position. While moving the treadle, the ram was activated, severing appellee's two fingers.
Appellee, at trial, sought recompense claiming appellant's press was defectively manufactured for two reasons: (1) the press was defectively designed in that it did not have an adequately protected foot treadle which would have prevented against accidental activation of the press, and (2) the press was defectively designed since it failed to provide adequate safeguards which would have prevented activation of the press while a hand was in the die area. In response to appellee's claim, appellant set forth two defenses of import: (1) the press was not defective in that the machine contained adequate safeguards for the prevention of injuries in the die area; and (2) even if the machine was defective, appellee assumed the risk of injury by placing her hand in the die area, when appellee knew of the potential risks and dangers involved.
I
TRIAL TESTIMONY
At trial, Virginia Knitz testified as to her work history family background, and to her employment at TDM. During her one week at TDM, she was responsible for trimming parts and operation of punch presses. With respect to the mechanical power presses, all of which operated by foot pedal, appellant testified that she received only limited instruction "Well, they would run a few, run a few of the parts, and they would stand there while you ran a few, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial