Genie Industries, Inc.v. Matak

462 S.W.3d 1 (2015)

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

Genie Industries, Inc.(D), manufactures and sells aerial lifts. D offers the lift at issue in this suit called the AWP-40S. One sign, located at eye level on the machine, displays an image of a man pushing the lift while elevated and in use and states DANGER: Tip-over hazard. Attempting to move the machine with the platform raised will tip the machine over and cause death or serious injury. A warning in the lift's manual states: 'Do not adjust or remove the outriggers while the platform is occupied or raised.' Even without these warnings, the danger is obvious. The lift's design is governed by and complies with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. The Cathedral in the Pines Church in Beaumont has an AWP-40S that it uses to reach the ceilings of its buildings. The Church hired Gulf Coast Electric to run fiber optic cable in the ceilings and allowed Gulf Coast's employees, James Boggan and Walter Matak (P), to use the lift. A church employee, John Adams, suggested the work would go faster if P were not lowered each time the lift was moved. The jacks could be raised a few inches, just enough to allow the lift to roll, then re-lowered. Boggan expressed reservations about this method. Adams reassured him that he and the other church employees did it 'all the time.' Actually, what they had done all the time was move the lift with the worker still on the platform, but not with the platform fully raised. Boggan attempted to follow the suggestion, but after he raised two of the leveling jacks only a few inches, the lift-with P still on the platform extended to its full 40' height-suddenly tipped over and crashed to the floor. P died of massive injuries to his head, and this action for wrongful death and survivor damages ensued. The jury apportioned responsibility 55% to D, 20% to the Church, 20% to Gulf Coast, and 5% to P. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and D appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's design defect finding. D appealed. D argues that P produced no evidence that a safer alternative design for the AWP-40S existed or that the risk of an accident like P's outweighs the lift's utility.