Weigle v. SPX Corp.
| Citation | 729 F.3d 724 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12–3024,12–3025.,s. 12–3024 |
| Parties | Scott WEIGLE and April Weigle, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. SPX CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellee. John Moore, II and Corinne Moore, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. SPX Corporation, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lawrence M. Hansen, Attorney, Hansen Law Firm, LLC, Noblesville, IN, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Mark D. Gerth, Attorney, Steven Edward Springer, Attorney, Kightlinger & Gray LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant–Appellee.
Before RIPPLE and TINDER, Circuit Judges, and ZAGEL, District Judge. *
This suit under the diversity jurisdiction stems from an incident in which a semi-truck trailer fell off of its support stands and on top of Scott Weigle and John Moore, the two mechanics who were working on the trailer. Weigle and Moore each sued SPX Corporation, the designer of the support stands, asserting claims of inadequate warnings and defective design under the Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA), Ind.Code § 34–20–1–1 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for SPX on all claims, finding that the warnings were adequate as a matter of law and that, as a result, the support stands were not defective under Indiana law. We affirm the district court's judgments on the inadequate-warnings claims, but we vacate the judgments on the defective-design claims and remand for further proceedings.
At the time of the underlying incident, Weigle and Moore were professional mechanicsemployed by Truckers 24–Hour Road Service, Inc., in Indianapolis, Indiana. Both had considerable experience: Weigle had been a mechanic at Truckers since 1997, and Moore had been a mechanic at Truckers since 2001.
On July 31, 2009, Weigle and Moore undertook a job to rebuild the braking system on a semi-truck trailer. In preparation, Weigle used an airlift to raise the rear portion of the trailer and then lowered the trailer onto two support stands; the front of the trailer was supported by the trailer's built-in dolly legs. Weigle had already begun working on the trailer when Moore came over to assist. The trailer somehow moved as both mechanics were working underneath it, causing the support stands to tip over and the trailer to come crashing down.
It is undisputed that the two support stands were OTC Tools 1779A support stands designed by SPX. These support stands consist of a conical base, an extension tube, and a support pin:
IMAGE
(Though omitted from this diagram, the support pin is tethered to the base by a chain and “S” hook.) These are heavy-duty support stands; the conical base is approximately 16 3/4 inches tall and approximately 15% inches in diameter, the extension tube is approximately 33 1/4 inches tall and approximately 2 7/8 inches in diameter, and the stand has a capacity rating of 12 tons when used properly. There are eight holes along the extension tube, each of which is roughly 3/4 inch in diameter. To adjust the height, the user places the support pin into the appropriate hole and allows the pin to rest on top of the base. The base lacks a bottom, so if the support pin is not used the extension tube will touch the ground. When this happens, the support stand becomes unstable because the weight of the load is not distributed to the broad conical base but instead rests almost entirely on the narrow extension tube.
The “Parts List and Operating Instructions” accompanying the support stands contains the following relevant safety precautions and operating instructions:
Safety Precautions
CAUTION: To prevent personal injury,
....
• Always use the support pin, which must be completely inserted through the support stand extension tube.
....
• The load and support stand(s) must be stable before beginning any repairs underneath the load.
.... 4. Insert the support pin ... completely through both walls of the extension tube.
IMPORTANT: Always check the placement of the support pin before lowering a load onto a support stand.
....
CAUTION: To prevent personal injury, the load and support stand(s) MUST be stable before any work begins underneath the load.
(For the full set of safety precautions and operating instructions, see Appendix A, infra.) On the left side of the safety precautions are three pictograms: one shows a person reading instructions; one shows debris bouncing off of a person's protective eyewear; and one shows a load falling on a person.
Also, affixed to the base of each support stand is a decal, which in relevant part provides:
WARNING
To prevent personal injury,
....
• Always use the support pin; insert support pin completely through extension tube.
....
• .... Load and support stand(s) must be stable before working beneath vehicle.
(For the full decal, see Appendix B, infra.) The warning decal also includes three pictograms, and each appears to the left of one of the first three bulleted instructions: the pictogram showing a person reading instructions appears next to the instruction that the user follow all instructions; the pictogram showing debris bouncing off of a person's safety goggles appears next to the instruction to wear eye protection; and the pictogram showing a load falling on top of a person appears next to the instruction not to exceed the capacity rating. No pictograms appear before the remaining four bulleted instructions, including the support-pin instruction, but those instructions are positioned below the pictogram illustrating a load falling on a person.
It is undisputed that Weigle and Moore did not use the support pin on the day of the incident. Weigle took care of situating the trailer onto the support stands, and he admitted that he never read the “Parts List and Operating Instructions” or the decal affixed to each support stand. Moore, on the other hand, had previously read all the instructions and warnings, but he did not inspect the support stands to see if the support pins were in place.
Weigle and Moore sued SPX in state court, asserting claims of inadequate warnings and defective design under the IPLA, and SPX removed both cases to the Southern District of Indiana, see28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.1 At the close of discovery, SPX filed near-identical motions for summary judgment in both cases. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56.
In opposition to SPX's motions for summary judgment, Weigle and Moore designated evidence that, according to industry custom, it is safest to operate support stands in their lowest possible position. Weigle testified in his deposition that the lowest position is the safest because it minimizes the distance that the mechanics have to lift the heavy tires when removing and reinstalling them. Similarly, Moore testified that he had been taught that support stands must be operated in the lowest possible position to ensure maximum stability. Roger Tapy, the owner and president of Truckers at the time of the incident, also noted that “in standard business, the lowest part of the stand is the safest height.”
Weigle and Moore also presented evidence that the SPX support stands are unlike most (if not all) other support stands on the market. Moore testified that other support stands are designed such that the center column cannot touch the ground even when a pin is not used, and for this reason, Moore was under the impression that the pin was merely used to adjust the support stands' height. Tapy also testified that in his 25 years with Truckers, the SPX support stands were the only ones in which the center column could touch the ground when the pin was not used; the other approximately 60 stands with which he had experience were designed so that the center column could never touch the ground.
They also designated the report and deposition testimony of William Dickenson, a professional engineer. Dickenson opined that the SPX support stands were defective and unreasonably dangerous because the column is permitted to pass through the plane of the base in the unpinned position. In his view, the support stands do not satisfy the requirements for the design of the central column set forth in Part 4 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers's Portable Automotive Lifting Device standards (“ASME PALD–4”). As relevant here, the section of ASME PALD–4 in both the 1993 and 2005 standards addressing columns provides: “In the fully retracted position, the lower end of the column shall not extend below the plane made where the base contacts the ground.” Dickenson interprets the term “fully retracted position” to refer to the lowest position of the column without use of the pin. He bases this interpretation on the fact that the 1993 and 2005 standards departed from the term “lowest operating position” (i.e., the lowest position with the pin) used in the 1991 standard.
Dickenson opined that utilizing the support stands without the support pin was foreseeable. In his opinion, SPX Dickenson acknowledged the warnings against not using the support pin, but he explained that He admitted that he had not conducted a statistical or financial analysis respecting his proposed alternative, but he testified that it cost him only about $10 to alter the support stands. He also noted in his report that after reviewing the descriptions of other support stands that are similar to the SPX support stands, the SPX stands appear to be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
...Indiana Product Liability Act ("IPLA") "ha[s] codified the entire field of products liability" under Indiana law. Weigle v. SPX Corp. , 729 F.3d 724, 737 (7th Cir. 2013) ; see also Gardner v. Tristar Sporting Arms , No. 1:09-cv-0671-TWP-WGH, 2010 WL 3724190, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 971......
-
Zurbriggen v. Twin Hill Acquisition Co.
...of any additional or more particular standard of care in product liability actions alleging a design defect."); Weigle v. SPX Corp. , 729 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that statute asks whether "the defendant ‘failed to take precautions that are less expensive than the net costs......
-
Lodholtz v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Inc.
...substantive issue in the case. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ; Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724, 737 (7th Cir.2013). The parties do not dispute that Indiana law governs this action. See Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mut. I......
-
Robert Lodholtz, , Inc. v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Inc.
...substantive issue in the case. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724, 737 (7th Cir.2013). The parties do not dispute that Indiana law governs this action. See Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mut. In......