Bruther v. General Electric Compan

818 F. Supp. 1238 (S.D. Ind. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was electrocuted while changing a light bulb at his place of employment, Rexnord, Inc. P attempted to unscrew the bulb from its socket when the glass envelope separated from the base, exposing his right hand to an electrical current. P sustained permanent, disabling injuries. P sued D, the alleged manufacturer, for product liability, strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn. D has moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) P cannot authenticate the bulb that he wishes to introduce into evidence, and (2) even if the bulb parts can be authenticated, P cannot establish any evidence of a defect in the light bulb. No one at Rexnord took care to safeguard the bulb after P was injured. Goodin, an employee, later removed the bulb from the socket, it is unclear what became of the bulb. When Mr. James, P's counsel, asked to examine the bulb, Riley, the plant safety manager, began to look for it. Riley found a broken bulb in a small cabinet next to the site where the accident occurred. Riley cannot positively identify the bulb as the one that was involved in the accident. Riley believes, with some reservations, it was the bulb because “we wouldn't keep broken bulbs; so if it was there, it had a specific purpose to be there.' The record indicates that only six people had access to the area where the accident occurred and the cabinet where the bulb was found. Also to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, there have been no other brands of light bulbs ever used in that fault indicator panel other than D bulbs, and he knows of no other brands of bulbs that have been stored in the area or used in that particular fault indicator panel.