Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Garry was employed by the Industrial Corporation (TIC), a contractor retained to install snowmaking facilities at the Steamboat Springs, Colorado, Ski Area. He was operating a Caterpillar Model 561D pipelayer, manufactured in 1977. The pipelayer is a large, tracked, construction vehicle which combines elements of a bulldozer and a crane andis used in the installation of snowmaking equipment to haul large sections of pipe for placement in trenches running up the side of the ski slope. The 561D braking system combines mechanical brakes with a hydraulic boost. The hydraulic assist substantially enhances braking capacity, but only when the vehicle's engine is running. Beginning in 1981, D altered the braking system on successor models of the 561D in order to add a spring-applied emergency braking system to the hydraulically-assisted brakes with which the TIC 561D was equipped. Spring-applied brakes automatically and immediately stop the pipelayer whenever the engine is shut off. The sections of pipe are heavy and cumbersome, and the slope was quite steep. It required some effort and skill to maintain the balance of the load and keep the pipelayer stable on the hill. Garry had only two weeks' experience on the 561D. As Garry tried to move a pipe into place, his co-worker, assistant welder Mike Gardner, shouted words to the effect that he should adjust the counterweight mechanism on the pipelayer in order to improve the machine's stability during this operation. Unable to hear over the noise of the vehicle, Garry shut off the engine, and the machine began rolling down the hill. Garry was observed 'stomping' on the brake pedals, but to no avail. With the pipelayer gaining speed, Garry rose from his seat and tried to climb off of the vehicle. He became tangled in the machine's cable works and then fell onto the tracks of the vehicle. He was crushed to death. P sued D. D filed a motion in limine seeking to bar the introduction of evidence of D's subsequent remediation in the design of the 561D. This motion was denied. D moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The jury found Caterpillar liable for $ 475,000 in damages. Both parties appealed. P claims that the jury instruction incorrectly defined 'fault,' as used in the comparative fault statute, to subsume ordinary negligence. P urges a construction of the statute that would allow a jury to consider only a plaintiff's assumption of risk and/or product misuse in deciding the extent to which a judgment should be reduced after a finding of manufacturer liability.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.