Products Liability Law Reporter

Bitco Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lippmann-Milwaukee, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-1718-GCS (S.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2019).

A federal district court held that the manufacturer of a rock crusher was not entitled to dismissal where a plaintiff presented sufficient claims for negligence and strict liability resulting from a work-related incident involving the machine.

Andrew Kreher, a quarry company employee, was working with a rock crusher, the Lippman-Milwaukee 3650 Jaw Crusher. While the power to the machine was turned off, Kreher made an adjustment to the discharge size of the rocks. The machine’s hydraulic hose burst, trapping and crushing Kreher’s hand and arm. He sued Lippman-Milwaukee, alleging strict products liability and negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss.

Denying the motion, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint alleges a plausible claim for strict liability. The complaint alleges that the hydraulic hose was defective when Lippman released the rock crusher into the stream of commerce. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the rock crusher was defective in its design and manufacture and for its lack of warnings about where users should place their hands while making adjustments.

The court also concluded that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged negligent product design in that he claims the defendant negligently failed to warn of the rock crusher’s dangers. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant released the jaw crusher with insufficient warnings and instructions, as well as his claim that the defendant owed a duty to exercise ordinary care during its training process, are sufficient pleadings alleging that the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff, the court said.

Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff’s case may proceed to discovery and trial.

Plaintiff counsel: Matthew R. Leffler, St. Louis.

Comment: For another work-related products liability case, see King v. Volvo Excavators AB, 215 A.3d 149 (Conn. 2019). There, construction worker Daniel King suffered fatal injuries when the bucket of a Volvo model EC340 excavator dislodged and fell on him at a work site. His wife, individually and on behalf of his estate, sued the designer, manufacturer, distributor, and prior owner of the excavator—including Volvo Group North America, LLC and Volvo Construction Equipment North America—alleging wrongful death and liability under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-572m et seq. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The Volvo defendants asserted that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by §52-577a, which provides that no products liability action may be brought against any party later than 10 years from the date that the last party relinquished possession or control of the product. While the motions were pending, the legislature amended the statute of repose to allow employees to sue under the act beyond the 10-year period if they prove that the injury occurred during the product’s useful safe life. The trial court granted the defense motions. Reversing, the appellate court concluded that the amendment to the repose statute applied retroactively, precluding summary judgment. The court concluded that on remand, the trial court must consider whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether King’s injury occurred during the useful safe life of the excavator. AAJ member Ralph J. Monaco and Eric J. Garofano, both of New London, Conn., represented the plaintiff.