Wood v. Morbark Industries, Inc.

70 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 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 seeks recovery from D, for the death of her husband, Ginger Wood. Ginger and his coworker, John, were using a wood chipper known as the 'Eeger Beever' to chip brush for the City. D manufactured and designed the chipper. The infeed chute was seventeen inches long. John did not see Ginger when he was pulled into the wood chipper, but he heard the machine make an unusual sound. John turned around, and Ginger's body was lying in the infeed chute of the chipper. Ginger’s head, arms, and the upper part of his torso were ablated when the knives of the wood chipper contacted his body. P claims that the chipper was defective and unreasonably dangerous because, among other things, the infeed chute was too short to protect the operator adequately. In a limine motion, D secured the exclusion of evidence of post-accident design changes that lengthened the infeed chute of the wood chipper. From the beginning of the trial, D sought to imply to the jury that the seventeen-inch chute was the safest length chute available and was still in use by the city as well as other government agencies. In his opening statement to the jury, D's counsel suggested that there had been no changes to the design of the wood chipper since the accident. During his cross-examination of John, D's counsel once again attempted to leave the jury with the impression that there had been no subsequent change to the design of the infeed chute, and the court permitted P to rebut that implication. Following the examination of John counsel engaged in the court outside the presence of the jury. The court was upset that D had opened the door on many occasions about the modifications after the fact and was taking unfair advantage. The issue of the modifications came up once again on P's examination of Norvel Morey. The attorneys were admonished and the jury was directed to disregard any comment that has been made by counsel, any question, any answer that has been elicited from any witness concerning the sale of any additional or extra length chute. D got the verdict and P moved for a new trial. The new trial was denied and P appealed.