Title: Schmeiser v. Trus Joist Corporation

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

540 P.2d 998 (1975)
Walter O. SCHMEISER, Respondent,
v.
TRUS JOIST CORPORATION and Construction Components, Inc., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.[*]
Argued and Submitted June 2, 1975.
Decided September 18, 1975.
Walter J. Cosgrave of Cosgrave & Kester, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant Trus Joist Corp.
Edward H. Warren, Portland, argued the cause for appellant Construction Components, Inc. With him on the briefs were Donald E. Hershiser, and Hershiser, Mitchell & Warren, Portland.
Raymond Conboy, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dan O'Leary, and Pozzi, Wilson & Atchison, Portland.
*999 BRYSON, Justice.
Plaintiff brought this action on two counts, negligence and strict liability, to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a fall due to the collapse of long spanned truss joists used in the construction of a gymnasium at Lake Oswego High School No. 2.
Both counts of plaintiff's complaint contain identical allegations that defendants "failed to provide adequate instructions for the safe erection of the joists" and "failed to warn of the dangers inherent in erecting the joists." Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff on the jury's verdict and the defendants appeal.
The defendants assign as error the trial court's denial of their respective motions for a directed verdict. The question before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury upon the allegations in plaintiff's complaint. The validity of the trial court's denial of defendants' motions depends upon whether there was any substantial evidence that defendants failed to provide adequate instructions for safe erection of the joists and failed to warn of the inherent dangers in erecting the joists and, if so, whether there was substantial evidence that such failure caused plaintiff's injuries.
In considering this assignment of error, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to every reasonable inference that may be drawn from both plaintiff's and defendants' evidence. Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc., 265 Or. 486, 490, 509 P.2d 1199 (1973).
Defendant Trus Joist Corporation (Trus Joist) manufactured the truss joists and defendant Construction Components, Inc., (Components, Inc.) supplied and sold the joists to Juhr & Sons, Inc., the contractor and plaintiff's employer. The truss joists manufactured and furnished by defendants were used in constructing the roof of both the main gymnasium and the auxiliary gymnasium. The construction of the auxiliary gymnasium had been completed and the plaintiff was injured during the erection of the roof of the main gymnasium. The main gymnasium required trusses approximately 104 feet in length and were spliced together in the center. The trusses for the auxiliary gymnasium were 80 feet in length and were manufactured in one piece.
The trusses used in the construction of the main gymnasium and which are the subject of this action are of the "H Series" (heavy). They consist of two 2" x 6" upper chords and two 2" x 6" lower chords which are held together by tubular steel webs. Interspaced along the bottom of the top chord and the top of the bottom chord are metal plates for the installation of a permanent bridging system[1] which provides the lateral support for the trusses. The permanent bridging runs at right angles to the trusses. Although the trusses are weak and unstable in their natural state, they develop exceptional strength when they are properly installed and placed in an upright position.
Both defendants supplied the contractor with printed instructions and illustrations for the installation of Series H trusses. Prior to erection of the joists, Components, Inc.'s representative visited the job site to discuss the correct procedure for the installation of the 104-foot trusses, and Components, Inc.'s assistant plant manager informed the contractor that "the joists were unstable 'til they were braced, and that he should install the bridging as he put the *1000 joists up." The contractor did not advise the defendants of their "problem" as cautioned in the instructions. Their first notice was after the joists collapsed.
Following are selected reproduced portions of the instructions and warnings given by defendants to the contractor, plaintiff's employee.
*1001 
*1002 In addition to the reproduced exhibits, Components, Inc., provided the contractor with a printed "General Information For Contractors," H Series:
together with additional illustrations showing proper erection of the trusses. The plans of the architect provided to the contractor incorporated other warnings and drawings furnished by defendants. They advised: "CAUTION: TJH * * * Trus Joists are unstable until attached to an adequate bridging system. Bridging and X-bracing should be installed as erection proceeds. No truss should be left without a connection to the bridging system."
Plaintiff's brief acknowledges that "warnings need only be given to the contractor or installer, and that the manufacturer or seller is exonerated from liability for injury to workmen if the contractor has knowledge of the danger. Plaintiff does not challenge these general propositions, which in fact are foreshadowed in this jurisdiction by McEwen v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.," 270 Or. 375, 528 P.2d 522 (1974), wherein we held that the manufacturer's duty of warning is satisfied if the physician but not the patient is given adequate warning. Both plaintiff and defendants refer to Jacobson v. Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp., 409 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir.1969) (duty to warn satisfied by giving warning to plaintiff's supervisor).
The record also conclusively shows that Dean May, project superintendent, and Robert Kauffman, job foreman for Juhr & Sons, and the work crew were fully aware of the characteristics of these instructions and understood the instructions and suggestions provided by defendants. Mr. Kauffman testified:
Mr. Dean May, the contractor's superintendent, testified that the printed instructions and suggestions for erection were given to him two or three weeks "before the erection began" and he had given these directions to those responsible for erection of the truss joists. He testified:
The erection of the truss joists for the roof began on a Friday and continued the following Monday and Tuesday. The trusses collapsed, injuring plaintiff, on *1003 Tuesday morning. At the time the trusses collapsed, the work crew had installed 14 trusses. The trusses were installed running east to west, beginning from the north wall, and were spaced 32", on center, apart. The work crew "tied" the trusses together by nailing 15 lines of temporary 2" x 6" and 2" x 8" struts to the top chord perpendicular to the trusses. The temporary struts across the top of the first (near north wall) trusses were anchored to the north wall and thereafter the top chord of each truss was anchored to the top chord adjoining it. The bottom chords of the trusses were not braced in any manner. Further, the trusses were welded down only at one end. Most important, the permanent bridging and bracing was not installed. Thus, the only lateral support of the 14 trusses was the temporary struts which were nailed perpendicularly across the top chords.
Thereafter, three bundles of 4' x 8' x 5/8" plywood were placed upon the temporarily braced trusses. Each bundle of plywood weighed approximately 1,100 to 1,296 pounds. The evidence indicates that two bundles of plywood were placed near the north wall and the third bundle of plywood was some 20 feet out from the north wall (not at "end supports"), across the seventh, eighth and ninth truss. In addition, 40 lineal feet of 4" cast iron drain pipe was placed across the trusses, together with the pipe or cross bracing between the bridging, which weighed approximately six pounds per foot. Mr. Rose, an engineer called by plaintiff, testified:
Mr. Berkemeier, a civil instruction engineer called by the plaintiff, testified:
Subsequently, on Monday, a serious mis-alignment or "snaking" was discovered in the trusses, and on Tuesday three men, including plaintiff, were sent aloft to "straighten up the trusses." The crane was used to lift one of the bundles of plywood from the trusses. Plaintiff assisted in this work and shortly thereafter the trusses collapsed.
Several expert witnesses were called to explain the reason for the collapse. Plaintiff's expert Birkemeier testified that
Scargin, an architect, testified that the absence of proper cross bracing on the bottom chords caused the trusses to rotate and go out of alignment. Another expert, Rose, testified:
Plaintiff did not plead that the Trus Joists were defective in design or manufacture and that issue is not before us. Plaintiff's brief acknowledges that "the instructions state: `Bridging and X Bracing should be installed as erection proceeds. No truss should be left without a connection to the bridging system.'"
Defendants contend that (1) the instructions for the use of the trusses were adequate as a matter of law; (2) the warnings given by defendants were comprehensive to the average user as a matter of law; (3) the warnings against inherent danger and foreseeable misuse were adequate as a matter of law; (4) because proper construction procedures were actually known to plaintiff's employer, any inadequacy of the installation suggestion is not a factor in producing plaintiff's injuries.
Plaintiff contends that (1) the instructions were not specifically designed for the 104-foot truss joists; (2) the instructions do not state at what point the permanent bridging should commence; (3) the instructions do not tell the contractor how many lines of temporary bracing to use or which method of two which were suggested should have been used; (4) there was no instruction for the installation of plywood sheathing.
Due to plaintiff's identical allegations in both counts, the same rule applies in considering plaintiff's and defendants' contentions  was there any substantial evidence to support the allegations in both of plaintiff's counts. We have held that "a failure to warn may make a product unreasonably dangerous." Fulbright v. Klamath Gas Co., 75 Or.Adv.Sh. 1019, 1023, 533 P.2d 316, 318 (1975); Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., 269 Or. 485, 525 P.2d 1033 (1974).
We first determine if the instructions given to the contractor were adequate.
Generally, the burden of proof that defendants were negligent in failing to warn of a danger connected with the injury-causing product is on the plaintiff. See generally Annot., 53 A.L.R.3d 239, 289, Products Liability  Failure to Warn. See also Noel, Products Defective Because of Inadequate Directions or Warnings, 23 Sw.L.J. 256, 264 (1969).
In Anderson v. Klix Chemical, 256 Or. 199, 209, 472 P.2d 806 (1970), we held
See also Dillard and Hart, Product Liability: Directions for Use and the Duty to Warn, 41 Va.L.Rev. 145 (1955).
However, unlike the facts in Anderson v. Klix Chemical, supra, when a warning is actually given, as in the case at bar, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded.
We do not believe that the plaintiff's contentions one through four, as previously set forth, are supported by the evidence: (1) It is argued that the instructions were not specifically designed for the 104-foot truss joists. Exhibit 1, the architect's drawings, specifically shows the permanent bridging and cross bracing and includes the afore-reproduced exhibits as prepared and given to the contractor, Juhr & Sons, by the defendants. This exhibit again states that "A Trus Joist system is designed to support specific loads. It is dangerous to overload a single joist or group of joists with piles of plywood, roofing or other materials. Distribute such materials in small bundles. * * * CAUTION: TJH * * * Trus Joists are unstable until attached to an adequate bridging system. Bridging and X-bracing should be installed as erection proceeds. No truss should be left without a connection to the bridging system." (Emphasis supplied.) The architect's drawing specifically incorporates the instructions and warnings and the use of permanent bridging and cross bracing on the plans which the contractor was to follow;[3] (2) it is *1006 contended that the instructions do not state at what point the permanent bridging should commence. The instructions state, as above set forth, that bridging and cross bracing should be installed as erection proceeds. Again, the architect's plans call for five lines of cross bracing on the top and bottom of the lower and upper joists; (3) it is contended that the instructions do not tell the contractor how many lines of temporary bracing to use or which method. Examination of plaintiff's Exhibit 9 shows that the temporary cross bracing should be connected to the top chord of three or more trusses and the wall before continuing with erection. The diagram indicates that a "W" or two triangular bracings of four top chords should be used. Plaintiff's Exhibit 30 states:
In addition, there is the testimony of the oral instructions to the contractor by a representative of defendant Components, Inc.; (4) it is contended there was no instruction for the installation of the plywood sheathing. Plaintiff's Exhibit 30, as just referred to, states that the sheathing may be put on joists in pairs on the ground before hoisting. It also states:
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence in this case is that the warnings and instructions were proper and adequate; they had served their purpose in informing the contractor as to the installation procedure and the dangers imposed. The contractor and work crew understood the directions given but knowingly deviated from those instructions and used a "shortcut" procedure. The contractor simply failed to follow the clear and accurate directions given though it was aware of the instructions and warnings. The evidence shows that the foreman, Kauffman, began original construction on the auxiliary gymnasium by following the instructions and warnings provided by defendants. Thereafter, he was told by the superintendent, Dean May, to disregard defendants' instructions and those shown in the architect's drawings. Mr. May testified:
At the time of ruling on defendants' motions for directed verdicts, the experienced trial court expressed serious doubt on submitting the case to the jury. He stated:
In an often referred to case involving a plaintiff's failure to follow the printed directions of a manufacturer, where the instructions were clear and understandable, the court stated:
Further, the deviation from instructions in the case at bar was not a "minor deviation" from the instructions for which a manufacturer may be liable. See Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., supra, 99 Or. Adv.Sh. at 1353, n. 7, 525 P.2d 1033.
We conclude from all of the above that there was no evidence to support the allegations in plaintiff's complaint and that defendants' motions for a directed verdict should have been granted.
Reversed.
[*]  DENECKE, J., did not participate in this decision.
[1]  The permanent bridging system consists of five continuous lengths of 2 x 4's which run perpendicular to and are attached to the metal clips on the bottom of the top chord and the top of the bottom chord of each truss. The bridging itself is secured to the walls of the building at both ends and is supported by metal cross bracing struts. (See portions of exhibits reproduced.)
[2]  Carlson, an engineer, testified that the removal or lifting of the plywood bundle by the crane "induced a lateral or horizontal load on the trusses."
[3]  Plaintiff tried his case on the premise that the joists should be erected with only temporary struts or bracing on the 14 top chords. This is contrary to the evidence. Further, the contractor deliberately deviated from the proper installation procedure set forth in the printed instructions, which had been read.