|
|
|
Accident Evidence Insufficient to Show Product Defect/Negligent Maintenance
(June, 2009) By Melissa E. Goldmeier, Summer Associate.
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
In Valerio v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P., Inc., Valerio
sought damages from Leyman Manufacturing Corporation ("Leyman") and Penske Truck
Leasing Company, L.P., Inc. ("Penske") for injuries sustained in connection with
an allegedly malfunctioning trailer side lift gate.
As part of his job description, Plaintiff was required to
drive, deliver, and unload goods from a truck and trailer. To do so, he had to
raise a side lift gate, manufactured by Leyman, that was attached to the
trailer. Penske serviced and maintained this truck and trailer.
The side lift gate was a remote-controlled rectangular
platform that was raised off the ground when the cargo within the trailer needed
to be unloaded, and then was lowered to the ground to facilitate easy unloading.
The remote that controlled these features was attached to the right-hand side of
the lift gate, via a long cord. A loading ramp hung off the end of the main
platform, and was secured by two hinges at each adjoining corner.
On the date of injury, Plaintiff wheeled four-7 foot high
dollies to the platform, leaving him very little room in which to reach the
remote control. As he tried to grab the remote, Plaintiff squeezed past the
dollies, placing at least one foot on the hinges that connected the ramp to the
platform. The hinges broke, causing the ramp to slide out from the hinges on the
other side. The entire ramp and its contents–including Plaintiff–fell to the
ground.
Plaintiff asserted several strict liability claims against
Leyman as the manufacturer of the side lift gate, including defective design,
manufacture, and warning. As to those claims, the court held that Plaintiff
failed to meet his burden of proving that the side lift was defective at the
time of sale and also failed to show any significant changes in the side lift
from when it was sold to the time it reached Plaintiff. The court also noted
that although Plaintiff's liability expert testified that defective design
caused Plaintiff's injury, Plaintiff had failed to show that his expert was
qualified to testify on such matters. In fact, the expert admitted twice that he
could not testify as to whether the defect existed at the time of the accident.
He provided no evidence that there was a defect at all, aside from mere
speculation. On these bases, the court granted Leyman's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
As to Plaintiff's negligent maintenance claims against
Penske, the court acknowledged that while Penske performed services that were
not always in conformity with Leyman requirements, Plaintiff had presented no
evidence that indicated that Penske had performed any services whatsoever on the
particular hinges in question. Furthermore, both Plaintiff and his expert
admitted that they had no knowledge of any other incidents involving broken
hinge barrels on that piece of equipment, or on any others serviced by Penske.
With this testimony, the court concluded, Penske could not possibly have had
notice of a latent defect, let alone have an opportunity to fix it. Finally,
because Plaintiff admitted that he was in a hurry and had entered and exited the
trailer in an unsafe manner, the court could not rule out user
error/contributory negligence by Plaintiff. The court granted Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
|
|
|
Top
