Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protection, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. 08A02-9703-CV-178,RMS-PROTECO,08A02-9703-CV-178 |
| Citation | 683 N.E.2d 264 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,135 Glendon WOLFE and Jane Ann Wolfe, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. STORK, f/k/a Stork Protecon, Inc., Appellee-Defendant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jane Ann and Glendon Wolfe [Wolfe] appeal the summary judgment entered in their negligence and product liability action against Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc [Stork] for the serious personal injuries suffered by Jane after her clothing became entangled in a turning bolt which protruded from a motor which drove a conveyer belt at the meat processing plant where she worked. Wolfe raises three issues, none of which constitute reversible error. We hold the following issue to be dispositive:
whether Wolfe has established a genuine issue of material fact that her injuries were proximately caused by Stork.
We affirm.
The facts in the light most favorable to nonmovant Wolfe reveal that she worked for the Indiana Packers Corporation at a large pork processing plant. Of the approximately sixty meat processing conveyor systems installed in the plant, Defendant Stork had supplied two. Stork provided technical support for its systems including help with the installation of the systems and the training of the workers who would be using them.
The present case involves one of the systems provided by Stork, a ham deboning machine along with its related material handling equipment including a conveyor driven by a hydraulic motor. The deboning machine would press down on a ham and squeeze the meat off. The meat would then travel down the conveyor for further processing. Wolfe's job was to stand at the end of this conveyor and cut excess fat off the meat with a knife.
The conveyor and motor of the ham deboning system sold by Stork was supplied by Defendant AFECO. Originally, the motor had been mounted directly onto the shaft of the conveyor pulley. An opening on the motor slipped directly over the shaft on the conveyor such that no coupler was required.
However, sometime after the original installation, Indiana Packers requested that the motor be replaced. Stork instructed Indiana Packers to order a replacement motor directly from AFECO. The replacement motor was shipped directly to Indiana Packers from Defendant Oil Air or its supplier North American Hydraulics. Stork was not involved in any way with the manufacturing, ordering, sale, delivery, or installation of the new motor. Evidence does exist to show that Stork representatives had been present in the plant after the installation of the replacement motor but only in conjunction with the other meat processing system provided by Stork which was located in another area of the plant.
The replacement motor and the manner in which it was installed was substantially different than the original set-up. The replacement motor was not directly mounted onto the conveyor, but instead required the use of a coupler. The shaft of the motor and the coupler were connected by a bolt which turned as the motor turned--one revolution every eight seconds. The coupler had several different sized bolts sticking out of it. One of these bolts which protruded from the coupler caught Wolfe's sleeve and pulled her into the machinery resulting in serious personal injuries to her arm and shoulder. The original set-up, as supplied by Stork, had no coupler; nor did it have any protruding, turning bolts.
In addition to suing Stork, Wolfe brought the present lawsuit against the Algona Food Equipment Company (AFECO's supplier), Oil Air Products, Inc. and its supplier, North American Hydraulics, Innovative Pork Concepts (majority owner of Indiana Packers), the Miller-Valentine Group (the general contractor for the meat processing plant), Shambaugh & Son, Inc. (the electrical and plumbing subcontractor), and Northhill Corporation (which assembled most of the production equipment in the plant). Stork is the only remaining defendant as the others have entered into settlements and have been dismissed from the lawsuit.
As noted above, Stork obtained summary judgment. Additional facts are supplied as necessary.
As stated in Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company, 672 N.E.2d 467 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied:
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. We must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the law has been correctly applied by the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Neither the trial court, nor the reviewing court, may look beyond the evidence specifically designated to the trial court. Once the movant for summary judgment has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists by submission of materials contemplated by T.R. 56, the nonmovant may not rest on his pleadings but must set forth specific facts, using supporting materials contemplated under the rule, which show the existence of a genuine issue for trial. A trial court's grant of summary judgment is "clothed with a presumption of validity," and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred.
Id. at 470-71 (Citations omitted). When a defendant manufacturer in a negligence/products liability case moves for summary judgment, it has the burden to show the uncontroverted nonexistence of at least one of the elements essential to plaintiff's case. Jarrell v. Monsanto Company, 528 N.E.2d 1158, 1162 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), trans. denied. The reviewing court will affirm the grant of summary judgment on any legal basis supported by the designated evidentiary material. Landmark Health Care Associates, L.P. v. Bradbury, 671 N.E.2d 113, 116 (Ind.1996).
The trial court's summary judgment order reads "there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment for [Stork]." Wolfe argues this general entry is insufficient to satisfy the requirement imposed by Ind.Trial Rule 56(C) that "the court shall designate the issues or claims upon which it finds no genuine issue as to any material facts." We disagree.
Under T.R. 56(C), the trial court must state the issues and claims upon which summary judgment is granted only where summary judgment is granted on less than all of the issues. Breeck v. City of Madison, 592 N.E.2d 700, 705 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. Otherwise, T.R. 56 imposes no requirement upon the trial court to specifically state the legal basis for granting summary judgment. Id.
The present case does not involve a partial summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Stork on all issues. Therefore, the trial court was not required to specifically state the legal basis of its judgment,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minisan v. Danek Medical, Inc.
...essential element of, and is determined in the same manner in, both negligence and product liability actions. Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Lucas v. Dorsey Corp., 609 N.E.2d 1191 (Ind.Ct. App.1993), trans. denied. Proximate cause is established if the ......
-
Johnson v. Avco Corp.. .
...of the foreseeability of the modification or alteration is ordinarily a question for the finder of fact. See Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264, 268 (Ind.App.1997). In support of their motion, the Textron defendants adduce evidence showing that the engine was recovered with i......
-
Tucker v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
...of science necessarily dependent on the testimony of physicians and surgeons learned in such matters”); Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264, 268 (Ind.App.1997) (“Proximate cause is an essential element of, and is determined in the same manner in, both negligence and product li......
-
Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc.
...Trial Rule 56, Mountain Tarp has the burden of negating an element of the Coffmans' design defect claim. Wolfe v. Stork RMS-Protecon, Inc., 683 N.E.2d 264, 267 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). As Mountain Tarp notes, "[e]xpert testimony is generally required to establish a design defect." Mountain Tarp's......