Lavoie v. Pacific Press & Shear Company

975 F.2d 48 (2nd 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

P was assigned to operate a hydraulic press brake that was designed, manufactured, and sold by D. Co-employees who observed P operating the press brake stated she was operating the machine carefully and in a normal fashion prior to the accident. They said they heard her suddenly scream and found her collapsed at the machine with her left hand crushed between its 'jaws.' After she was released from the machine and was waiting for medical attention, Lavoie told them she had 'tripped and kicked it,' probably meaning she had accidentally triggered the foot pedal, the sole means of activating the press brake. D sold and delivered its presses without safety equipment. The press brake was actuated solely by a foot pedal whose entry port had no guard. Its unguarded entry port permitted the machinery to be accidentally started by the inadvertent entry of foreign objects or by an operator's foot. Because the foot pedal was attached to the machine by a long, flexible cable, it could be positioned adjacent to the machine as well as at a distance far from it. GE added safety devices, but they were for the most part ineffective. P sued D in federal court under breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, strict products liability, and negligence. The judge during a bench conference alerted everyone to potential inconsistencies in P's theories of recovery. D saw the jury instructions at a pre-charge conference, and counsel saw the verdict forms submitted to the jury beforehand. A “Special Verdict” contained a series of questions about each theory, and a second “Verdicts” form asked if D was liable under each theory. No objection was made by d at the charging conference or during the charge itself regarding any inconsistency between the different theories of liability, nor did D interpose an objection respecting the submission of separate interrogatories and separate general verdict forms to the jury pertaining to each theory. P presented evidence that D's press lacked an operator handlebar designed to help the operator maintain her balance; it had no emergency stop switch; and its foot control pedal design did not include a device to prevent accidental activation by the operator. P's proof showed the safety devices had been identified in the industry as recommended minimum safety standards in its American National Standard Safety Requirements. The jury found that D was not liable for breach of either warranty or on grounds of strict liability, but it found both P and D negligent and assigned 85 percent of the liability, or $412,250 in damages, against D. D moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial on grounds of insufficient evidence and intervening cause. D never objected to the verdict forms. Ds motions were denied. P appealed for the first time, claiming that the verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent.