Watson v. Lucerne Machinery & Equipment, Inc., 76-1550

• Decision Date: 29 June 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1550,76-1550
• Citation: 347 So.2d 459
• Parties: Juanita WATSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles R. Watson, Deceased, Appellant, v. LUCERNE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, INC., and Central Florida Machinery Co., Inc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 459

347 So.2d 459

Juanita WATSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles R. Watson, Deceased, Appellant, v. LUCERNE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, INC., and Central Florida Machinery Co., Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1550.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 29, 1977.

David J. Williams and Craig M. Spanjers, Stanley, Durrance & Wines, Auburndale, for appellant.

John R. Bush, Macfarlane, Ferguson & Kelly, Tampa, for Central Florida Machine Co., Inc. J. Julian Bennett, Winter Haven, for Lucerne Machinery and Equipment, Inc., James M. Fiske and Fiske-Gay Associates, Inc.

SCHEB, Judge.

Charles R. Watson was accidentally killed in a citrus processing plant where he was employed, his head having been crushed by the rotating arm of a machine known as a "Kinsey Sampler." Watson's personal representative claimed the machine was defective and brought suit for damages against Lucerne Machinery & Equipment, Inc., the manufacturer of the machine; Fiske-Gay Associates, Inc. and James M. Fiske, the designers; Central Florida Machinery Co., the installer; and Royal Globe Insurance Co., the liability insurer for Central Florida Machinery Co. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. This appeal by Watson's personal representative ensued. We affirm.

Watson had been employed by Alcoma as a utility man in its citrus processing plant in Polk County for approximately a year and a half before his death. The Kinsey Sampler in use in that plant was designed to statistically select fruit for sampling as the fruit passed through the machine on a conveyer belt. The sampling was necessary in order to meet the requirements imposed by the Florida Citrus Commission. On the day he was killed, Watson was assigned the task of assuring a smooth flow of fruit into some bins. This task was usually handled by another employee who was sick that day, but Watson had performed this same task in the past. The job did not require Watson to come any closer than 10-20 feet from where he met his demise. In fact, he had been warned by his supervisors to stay away from the machine because of the dangers involved during its operation. Watson, nevertheless, assumed the difficult task of crawling into the Kinsey Sampler, thereby exposing himself to the danger of the rotating sampler arm. Though there is some dispute as to whether the motion of the sampler arm was continuous or periodic, no one disputes that the sampler arm was clearly visible.

In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment the plaintiff introduced an affidavit from an engineering expert, which said that "the guards and safety devices utilized in the construction and installation of the Kinsey Fruit Sampler were not adequate to provide reasonable protection to persons working in and around the said machine."

While not specifically mentioned by the trial judge, both sides agree that the trial court awarded summary judgment on the basis of the principle of law enunciated in Farmhand, Inc. v. Brandies, 327 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In Farmhand the plaintiff, Brandies, was an eighteen-year-old farmer who operated a machine known as a "Farmhand Feed Master." The machine received and mixed feed by means of high speed rotating augers housed within a cylinder. To operate the machine it was necessary for Brandies to stand in close proximity to it. Although he was well acquainted with the danger of the whirring augers, one day Brandies' hand was mangled when he carelessly dropped it into the cylinder while the machine was in operation.

Brandies sued the manufacturer of the machine for damages. The evidence disclosed if a simple guard plate had been installed on the machine the accident would not have occurred. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff Brandies, but the First District reversed, holding that the manufacturer of the machine could not have been liable as Brandies knowingly exposed himself to a patently dangerous condition.

In the case now before us the trial judge apparently determined that the Kinsey Sampler presented such an obvious or patent danger, and since Watson was fully aware of that danger, that there was no legal basis for imposing liability on any of the defendants.

Appellant argues that the patent danger doctrine has been abrogated by West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976), wherein the Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, ...