Mckenzie v. S K Hand Tool Corp.

650 N.E.2d 612 (1995)

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 injured while working on the engine of a truck. P decided to use the 3/4-inch ratchet wrench his employer had in the shop. It was manufactured by D. P broke two or three bolts loose with the ratchet wrench and removed those bolts with the wrench. To remove one of the bolts, P had to put an extension on the wrench. While standing on the truck, P began pulling back the wrench. The wrench came apart, and P fell off the truck backward, hitting his right side and shoulder on the concrete floor. P sustained injuries to his neck and shoulder. P found pieces of the wrench on top of the engine, in the frame of the truck, and on the floor. P picked up the pieces but did not find the plug from the wrench. P was alone when the accident occurred. When the shop owner returned to the shop, P told him about the accident and showed them the wrench. P sued D in strict product liability. Experts examined the product and its design. P's expert concluded that a part did not meet the hardness required in the specifications (a measurement of 48 to 52 on a Rockwell C scale) and that this failure to comply with the specifications could affect the snug fit of the ring in the grooves of the driver and thus its ability to properly hold the driver and the handle together. Other alleged variances were found between D's specifications and the actual product. P's expert offered two potential explanations for why the wrench came apart. The expert testified that in his opinion, the wrench in question was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the snap ring groove did not comply with D's specifications and, in conjunction with the outward taper of the snap ring groove, this overall noncompliance with the specifications could permit the wrench to come apart. At the close of all the evidence, P filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which the court denied. D filed a motion for directed verdict. The court instructed the jury that it had granted motions to strike the testimony of P's and D's experts 'with respect to measurements and specifications with respect to the effect of those specifications and measurements on the wrench.' D got the verdict. The court denied P's post-trial motion, from which P appeals.