Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co., ALLIED-SIGNA
| Decision Date | 23 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | ALLIED-SIGNA,INC,No. C5-90-2683,C5-90-2683 |
| Citation | 473 N.W.2d 352 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,994 Clyde WESTBROCK, et al., Appellants, and St. Paul Fire & Marine, Plaintiff in Intervention, v. MARSHALLTOWN MFG. CO., Respondent, Allied-Signal, Inc., Defendant., Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. NOVA FABRICATING, INC., Third Party Defendant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The manufacturer of a multi-purpose punch press has no duty to provide point-of-operation guards which would necessarily
impair the multi-function nature of the press.
2. The manufacturer of a multi-purpose punch press has a duty to warn the operator of the risks of lack of point-of-operation guarding and improper maintenance, repair, or alterations.
3. Unless evidence relative to causation is so clear and conclusive as to leave no room for a difference of opinion among reasonable minds, the issue is one for jury determination.
4. A claim that an employer's alterations and lack of maintenance of a punch press constituted a superseding cause of an operator's injuries may present factual issues for jury determination.
Robert J. King, Jr., Hvass, Weisman & King, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Michele Dale Seehafer, St. Paul, for respondent.
Kevin A. Spellacy, St. Cloud, for third party defendant.
Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and PETERSON and MULALLY *, JJ.
Appellants bring this appeal from the dismissal by summary judgment of their complaint in a products liability action alleging negligence in the design of a mechanical punch press; failure to provide proper safety guards; and failure to warn of potential hazards. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial.
On July 28, 1986, appellant Clyde Westbrock (Westbrock), while in the course and scope of his employment with respondent/third party defendant Nova Fabricating, Inc. (Nova), was injured in an accident involving a mechanical power press manufactured by respondent Marshalltown Manufacturing Company (Marshalltown). Allied-Signal, Inc. is a successor corporation to Marshalltown. The parties contest the cause of the accident.
Marshalltown manufactured the press at issue in 1954 and included one page of instructions with a set of parts drawings. The above-mentioned instructions and drawings were not included with the press when Nova purchased the machine at a 1984 auction. The instructions and drawings contain no information or warnings concerning the need for point-of-operation guards or the need to properly maintain the press to avoid potential double-cycling injuries. Marshalltown did not equip the press with point-of-operation guards and the press did not contain any warnings regarding the need for safety guards or proper maintenance.
Roger Ebnet (Ebnet), Nova's co-owner and plant manager, supervised installation of the press. A safety device, known as a pull-back device, accompanied the press. Nova employees bolted the press to the flooring, "wired-up" the press, and attached the flywheel. Nova employees also cleaned the press of excess grease and put the machine into operation.
As installed at Nova, there were no safety devices or point-of-operation guards on the press. The pull-back device was incomplete upon delivery and apparently was never installed while the press was at Nova. The record offers conflicting evidence as to whether Ebnet and other Nova employees recognized the pull-back device as a safety device. There is no evidence Westbrock knew the pull-back existed or appreciated its function.
Nova purchased the press to perform operations necessary to complete a metal ring contract and obtained three separate operation dies needed to perform the operations. Nova employees installed the dies on the press. There apparently were no problems with using the press for the first ring contract in the fall of 1984.
There is considerable controversy surrounding the repairs and maintenance performed by Nova employees. Marshalltown argues that no single Nova employee was in charge of press repairs and maintenance. Westbrock contends Ebnet relied on the expertise of his lead pressman, Tom Scepaniak (Scepaniak), to properly maintain the press. Marshalltown contends Scepaniak only did general greasing functions.
It is undisputed that in the fall of 1984, a severe crack in the press flywheel developed. Someone removed the flywheel and heated it for several hours. It is undisputed that in the summer of 1985, the pin or the latch in the activating mechanism was removed, shaved down, and welded. Scepaniak claims Frank Malich (Malich) removed the pin and had a welder add weld to it. Malich, however, testified he took out the latch, not the pin, and it was the latch that was smoothed on one side and had weld added to it. There is also a dispute as to whether a new pin was fashioned and installed by Nova.
There is an evidentiary dispute concerning the press' double-cycling. Many employees, including Westbrock and Ebnet, claim they had no knowledge of the press double-cycling prior to Westbrock's accident. However, other employees testified the Marshalltown press double-cycled "from the day it came in."
The parties also dispute whether Scepaniak warned Ebnet or any other employees, including Westbrock, about the possibility of double-cycling. Scepaniak claims he warned Ebnet and Westbrock about the possibility of double-cycling. Westbrock testified he was unaware of any prior double-cycling before his accident. Ebnet also denied any prior knowledge of double-cycling.
Westbrock commenced this products liability action against Marshalltown alleging negligence in the design of the mechanical power press, failure to provide proper safety guards, and failure to warn of potential hazards. The trial court granted Marshalltown's summary judgment motion and dismissed Westbrock's complaint.
1. Did the trial court properly conclude that the manufacturer of a multi-purpose punch press does not have a duty to provide point-of-operation guards which would necessarily impair the press' multi-function nature?
2. Did the trial court properly conclude that Marshalltown had no duty to warn Westbrock of the risks of lack of point-of-operation guarding and improper maintenance, repair, or alteration?
3. Did the trial court properly find no causal connection between Marshalltown's failure to warn and Westbrock's injuries?
4. Did the trial court properly find that Nova's lack of maintenance and alterations to the punch press constituted a superseding cause of Westbrock's injuries?
On appeal from summary judgment, this court must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of law. Offerdahl v. University of Minn. Hosps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn.1988); Olson v. Ronhovde, 446 N.W.2d 690, 691 (Minn.App.1989); Minn.R.Civ.P. 56.03. The trial court may not decide factual issues via summary judgment, and its sole function is to determine whether factual issues exist. Nord v. Herreid, 305 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Minn.1981). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted, and "[a]ll doubts and factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party." Id.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "summary judgment is proper when the nonmoving party fails to provide the court with specific facts indicating that there is a genuine issue of fact." Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Minn.1986) (citing Erickson v. General United Life Ins. Co., 256 N.W.2d 255, 258-59 (Minn.1977)). To successfully oppose a summary judgment motion, a party cannot rely upon mere general statements of fact, but rather must demonstrate at the time the motion is made that specific facts create a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing Borom v. City of St. Paul, 289 Minn. 371, 374, 184 N.W.2d 595, 597 (1971)).
Westbrock contends Marshalltown had a duty to provide point-of-operation safety guards on its press. Marshalltown argues the press' multi-purpose nature precluded installation of a single safety device which would not impair the machine's multi-function nature. Marshalltown argues it had no duty as a matter of law to provide point-of-operation guards. We agree with the trial court that based on the evidence presented, Marshalltown had no duty to provide point-of-operation guards for this multi-function power press.
Minnesota has adopted the general rule that a manufacturer's duty to design and manufacture a reasonably safe product may not be delegated. Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 616, 624 (Minn.1984). Bilotta merged strict liability, negligence, and implied warranty remedies into a single products liability theory. To recover, an injured party must show (1) the product was in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to the user, (2) the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control, and (3) causation. Id. at 623 n. 3. The supreme court fused a negligence standard into a traditional strict liability theory by employing a reasonable care balancing test to determine whether the product was defective. The court stated:
[A] manufacturer is obligated to exercise that degree of care in his plan or design so as to avoid any unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who is likely to be exposed to the danger when the product is used in the manner for which the product was intended, as well as an unintended yet reasonably foreseeable use.
What constitutes "reasonable care" will, of course, vary with the surrounding circumstances and will involve "a balancing of the likelihood of harm, and the gravity of harm if it happens, against the burden of the precaution which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stringer v. Nat'l Football League
...warning and re-installed or checked the safety bar on the machine so as to prevent injury. Id. at 509. In Westbrock v. Marshalltown Manufacturing Co., 473 N.W.2d 352 (Minn.Ct.App.1991), the employee plaintiff was injured while operating a mechanical punch press that he alleged lacked proper......
-
In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig. Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings
...Nimeth v. Prest Equip. Co. , No. C1-93-685, 1993 WL 328767, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 1993) ; Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co. , 473 N.W.2d 352, 356 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). Martin responds that the Court should not grant Actavis's motion because "a party can plead claims in the altern......
-
Thompson v. Hirano Tecseed Co., Ltd., 05-2813.
...theory, which employs a reasonable-care balancing test to determine whether a product is defective. See Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co., 473 N.W.2d 352, 356 (Minn.Ct.App.1991) (court must balance "the likelihood of harm, and the gravity of harm if it happens, against the burden of the pr......
-
Young v. Pollock Engineering Group, Inc.
...of a product manufacturer's duty to warn of foreseeable dangers associated with the use of its product. See Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co., 473 N.W.2d 352, 358 (Minn.Ct.App.1991) (noting that the trial court, correctly, "did not substitute ANSI and OSHA standards for case law duty 4. At......
-
Finding middle ground: reconciling the disparate approaches courts have taken in determining liability when a purchaser declines optional safety equipment.
...on her own not to buy it). (32) Id. at 623. (33) Id. at 624. (34) Id. (35) Id. at 624-625. (36) Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co., 473 N.W.2d 352, 357 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). This exception appears similar to Bexiga's second exception--for safety devices that would render the machine unusab......