Lovick v. Wil-Rich

588 N.W.2d 688 (1999)

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 pulled ae cultivator to a field with a tractor. The wings of the cultivator were in the upright, vertical position to accommodate its transportation. Once in the field, P attempted to unfold or lower the wings into position to begin cultivation. P positioned himself under the left wing of the cultivator to remove the first pin. The wing immediately fell when the pin was removed. P was severely injured. Later investigation revealed the wing fell when P removed the pin because the linkage attaching the cylinder to the wing had broken. Consequently, the pin was the only device holding the wing in its upright position at the time it was removed. D first introduced the vertical fold model cultivator in 1971. It manufactured approximately 35,000 units. This particular cultivator was manufactured in 1981. Rotgers who purchased the cultivator was at least the second owner. It contained a warning sign which cautioned the operator to remove the pin prior to lowering the wings. The operator's manual further warned against going under the wings to remove the pins. In 1983, D received a report that a wing of one of its cultivators had fallen and injured the operator. It received eight other such reports. In 1988, D began to affix a warning label to the cultivators it manufactured to caution operators of the danger of going under the wing to remove the pin. In 1994, D began a campaign to notify owners of its cultivators of the danger of falling wings. It also made a backup safety latch kit available for installation on the wings. P sued D in strict liability and negligence seeking compensatory and punitive damages. P introduced evidence that Deere & Company, instituted a safety program in 1983 for its similarly designed cultivator after learning of instances of the wing falling on the operator. The Deere & Company program included efforts to locate the cultivator owners and equip the existing cultivators with a wing safety latch and an upgraded warning label. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on the strict liability theory of defective design and the negligence claim of breach of a post-sale duty to warn. It also submitted punitive damages on the negligence claim. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $2,057,000. The verdict included $500,000 in punitive damages and $400,000 in loss of consortium to P's wife. D appealed.