Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck And Company

981 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1992)

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

Benjamin (P) was a 70-year-old man who was using the jointer to do carpentry work on kitchen cabinets for his home. Benjamin (P) was a 70-year-old man who was using the jointer to do carpentry work on kitchen cabinets for his home. It was purchased from D and was designed, manufactured, and distributed by Emerson Electric Company (Emerson). P had to have two fingers amputated. Ps alleged negligence and breach of warranty and loss of consortium to Rosalind, P's wife. Ps also added Emerson as a defendant and alleging that Emerson engaged in the design development, testing, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the jointer. Benjamin died on June 20, 1990, from causes unrelated to his injuries. P claimed that the accident occurred when Benjamin's left hand entered an unguarded aperture near the on-off switch and came into contact with the jointer's blade. P claimed his left hand slipped from the on-off switch and entered into an opening allowing his fourth and fifth fingers to make contact with moving cutter blades. Ps' engineering expert, Schofield, testified that the opening represented an unreasonably hazardous design that violated accepted industry standards and resulted in the accident. Mr. Schofield testified that the opening could have been eliminated at negligible cost. Ds' engineering expert, Hyde, testified that the accident could not have occurred as claimed. Hyde stated it would be difficult to get one's fingers into the opening unintentionally. Plus, the angle and location of the cuts on P's fingers, as depicted in the x-ray, were inconsistent with his testimony as to how the fingers were cut. Hyde was also permitted to testify that there had never been a similar complaint to Emerson. Ps sought to cross-examine Hyde with regard to a subsequent design change which eliminated the opening in the jointer. The court refused. Ps argue that this cross-examination should have been permitted because Hyde testified during direct examination that there had been 'no hazardous area left exposed next to the switch where you could unintentionally get your hand,' even though he contributed to a subsequent design change which eliminated the opening in question. Ds got the verdict and Ps appealed.