Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00006/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00006-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

The baler that is the subject of this litigation is a piece of equipment used by recycling facilties to

pack together large amounts of newspaper and cardboard into compact bales for ease of storage and shipping.

The ‘feed hopper’ is the compartment of the baler where the newspaper or cardboard falls into and where the

‘ram’ moves forward to compact the material. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

STEVAN B. DALRYMPLE, Individually *

and as Special Administrator of the Estate *

of Matthew Jordan Dalrymple, Deceased, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * No.5:04CV00006 SWW

*

THE HARRIS WASTE MANAGEMENT *

GROUP, INC. and IPS BALERS, INC., *

*

Defendants. *

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This case is before the Court on defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motions to

strike plaintiff’s designation of an expert witness. Plaintiff responded to the motions and separate

defendant Harris Waste Management Group, Inc. (“Harris”) filed replies to plaintiff’s responses.

For the reasons stated below, the motions are denied. 

Background

At the time of his death, Matthew Jordan Dalrymple (“Jordan”), was employed by Jefferson

County, Arkansas, as a general laborer at the Jefferson County recycling facility. Although there

were no eyewitnesses, the evidence suggests that on August 1, 2002, Jordan climbed up the

conveyor to clear a jam at the compacter hopper, fell into the compaction chamber, and was crushed

between the edge of the compaction chamber and the baler ram.1

 The subject baler was designed

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 20
2

by Harris on or about 1985, and manufactured by Harris on or about 1997. In or about 2001,

separate defendant IPS Balers, Inc. (“IPS”) purchased the baler from Lin Pac, Inc. IPS then sold the

baler to Jefferson County Recycling Center on or about January 2002.

The baler was shipped in three sections to Jefferson County for installation. Mr. Jim Fox

contracted with IPS to install the baler and a conveyor to be used with the baler for Jefferson

County. Mr. Fox and others installed the baler and conveyor at the Jefferson County recycling

facility in mid-January 2002. Separate defendant Harris did not manufacture the conveyor installed

at the recycling facility.

Plaintiff Stevan Dalrymple, individually and as special administrator of Jordan Dalrymple’s

Estate, brings this suit asserting claims of negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty

against Harris and IPS. He asserts the baler manufactured by Harris and the baler/conveyor system

put into the stream of commerce by Harris and IPS was defective and unreasonably dangerous.

Plaintiff also argues the training manual furnished by Harris and used by Fox to train the Jefferson

County employees was incorrect, specifically concerning a switch on the baler. He claims

defendants failed to give reasonable and adequate instruction concerning safety conditions and

methods for the system’s operation, and failed to warn of dangers inherent in the product’s use.

Plaintiff further asserts Harris breached an implied warranty of merchantability, and that IPS

breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In addition to compensatory

damages, plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

Separate defendant IPS moves for summary judgment on the basis of plaintiff’s expert

witness’s testimony that the faults of the baler are the result of original design defects due to the

absence of certain safety features that could have been incorporated into the original design. IPS

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 20
2

IPS motion and brief in support to strike [docket entries 55 & 56] incorporate Harris’ motion and

brief [docket entries 49 & 50].

3

argues that it did not design or manufacture the baler, and did not modify it or the conveyor in any

way that would have contributed to the accident. It further contends that through Fox, it provided

all the training it was contractually obligated to provide; it violated no duty to anyone and thus is

entitled to summary judgment on the negligence and breach of warranty claims; and because the

alleged defects are all design-related, any liability would pass through to Harris. IPS also seeks

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. In addition, IPS moves to strike

plaintiff’s designation of Igor Paul as expert witness.2

Separate defendant Harris moves to strike Paul as plaintiff’s expert witness and moves for

summary judgment on the basis that Paul’s testimony should be excluded under the principles of

Daubert. Defendant Harris contends that without the testimony of Paul, plaintiff cannot prove his

strict liability or negligence claims. It also argues that there is no evidence to support plaintiff’s

breach of warranty claim against Harris. In a separate motion, Harris argues it is entitled to

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Discussion

I. Admissibility of Igor Paul’s Testimony Pursuant to Daubert

After plaintiff filed suit, he designated Igor Paul, PhD., to provide expert testimony regarding

defective design, warnings, instructions, and negligence. Dr. Paul is the only expert plaintiff has

designated to provide testimony on these subjects. 

Dr. Paul received a doctoral degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1964, specializing in machine and product design and industrial

control systems. As a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT for 39 years, he taught industrial

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 20
3

Pl’s. Resp. to Mot. Strike/Summ. J. [docket entry 68], Ex. 5.

4

machine and product design and automatic control systems to undergraduate and graduate students

and conducted research in these areas until he retired in 2003. He has been a registered professional

engineer for over 39 years,3

 and has over 80 publications in the areas of designing, engineering,

education, solid waste disposal, transportation, and bioengineering. 

In his November 14, 2003, report, and during his deposition, Dr. Paul advanced five

alternative design theories in support of his opinion that the design of the Harris baler and its control

system was defective. He testified that there should have been an interlock system on the conveyor

and/or at the conveyor/hopper infeed transition area which would automatically stop power to the

compactor and the conveyor when a worker tried to get access to that area to clear a jam. He

testified there should have been a set of handrails at the top of the conveyor sidewalls with

emergency trips which would shut down power to the conveyor and compactor when someone was

climbing to the top of the conveyor. Dr. Paul said the baler was defective because it did not have

consistent, logical, and well-marked baler operating control switches, and because it did not have

emergency stop controls which would automatically return the compacting ram to the retracted

position if the emergency stop was activated during the compacting stroke of the ram. Lastly, he

said there should have been proper warnings and instructions on the operator console, platform, and

equipment describing safe procedures for clearing jams. 

In Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), the Supreme

Court charged trial judges with the responsibility of acting as “gatekeepers” to ensure that expert

testimony is founded on valid and reliable scientific knowledge. Subsequently, in Kumho Tire Co.

v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court made it clear that the Daubert standard

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 4 of 20
5

applies to all “expert” testimony and not just purely “scientific” expert testimony. In 2000, Federal

Rule of Evidence 702 was amended in response to Daubert and Kumho. It provides: 

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an

expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in

the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient

facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and

(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the

case.

Daubert set forth a non-exclusive list of factors a court can use in assessing the reliability of

scientific expert testimony: whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested;

whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; the rate of error

associated with the technique or theory; and whether the technique or theory has been generally

accepted in the scientific community. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94. As Kumho recognized,

these factors do not constitute a definitive list, but rather must be tied to the facts of the particular

case. 526 U.S. at 150. The Daubert factors “‘may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability,

depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his

testimony.’ . . . Too much depends upon the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.”

Id. The objective is to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony. Id. at 152.

 Harris argues Paul’s testimony is inherently unreliable and will not assist the jury in

understanding any fact at issue. Citing Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., 394 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2005),

Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1999), and Peitzmeir v. Hennessy Indus., Inc.,

97 F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 1996), Harris contends Paul’s alternative design theories have not been tested

and Paul has not prepared any drawings or diagrams to support his alternative designs. It argues

Paul failed to submit any practical information to support his alternate baler designs which would

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 5 of 20
4

See Pl’s Mot. and Br. for Leave to Supp. and Correct [doc. # 74], Ex. A. 

5

See Pl’s. Resp. to Mot. Strike/Summ. J.[doc. # 68], Ex. 3.

6

Id., Ex. 9 at 78-79.

6

allow proper testing and analysis to occur; never designed a baler or baling system like the one

involved in the accident; has not tested any of the design alternatives he is proposing for the subject

baler; has not performed any studies or analysis of balers for this case; and is not aware of any baler

manufacturers that have implemented even one of his design alternatives. In addition, Harris states

that while Paul’s alternate design theories have not been the subject of formal peer review, they have

been evaluated and discounted as being unfeasible, and are not used by any baler manufacturer.

Finally, Harris asserts the “error rate” for Paul’s alternate designs is unknown and his designs are

not generally accepted in the baling community.

In response, plaintiff admits there are only a few mandatory standards for manufacturers as

far as what safety devices balers must have. The industry has attempted some self-regulation, and

the American National Standards Institute, Inc. (“ANSI”) has propounded similar voluntary

standards - the ANSI Z245.5-1990 Standard - 4

 which relies primarily on lock-out, tag-out

procedures. However, the ANSI also calls for guarding and/or interfaced doors to prevent access by

an employee to the machine. Further, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(“NIOSH”) has suggested several voluntary methods to prevent worker injury or death, including

guarding of moving parts, lock-out, tag-out; sensors; and transmitters which are designed to

acknowledge when a user or other person crosses their path.5

 Plaintiff also points out that after the

accident, Jefferson County put cameras in place to ensure the operator at the control panel can see

the conveyor belt at all times.6

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 6 of 20
7

 Id., Ex. 4 at 39.

8

Harris’ Mot. Summ.J/Strike Expert [docket entry 49], Ex. C at 40-41.

9

 Pl’s. Resp. to Mot. Strike/Summ. J.[doc. # 68], Ex. 3. at 43-44.

10Id. at 47-48.

11Id. at 84-85.

12Id. at 66.

13Id. at 85.

7

Dr. Paul has designed systems for feeding hoppers for material processing, including waste

processing. This includes a conveyor system and the conveyor interface with the hopper.7

 While

he has not designed a baler system, he testified he had designed four or five interface systems for

balers used in waste management, and has designed everything on the machine at Jefferson County

except the conveyor.8 Dr. Paul testified he implemented his alternative safety designs into two

baler systems. One was in a New Hampshire power plant, which removes waste, ashes, and fuel,

and involves a conveyor system and a hopper. The other was a recycling operation in New York

which had a compactor and baler and used the machine for different applications.9

Dr. Paul testified that when designing safety devices for four or five systems in the field, his

focus was to provide a safety system when operators access the hopper, which is in essence a big

hole. He has used a keyed access gate, which was only accessible if the power was shut off.10 He

has used electronic eyes to shut down the machine if an employee crossed the beam.11 He has also

observed other safety features such as a cat-walk around the top of the hopper. This allows the

worker access to a jam without having to approach the edge of the big hole.12

Dr. Paul testified he had designed at least two systems that have sensors that operate as

interlock devices if an individual gets on a conveyor near a hopper.13 This is similar to a safety

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 7 of 20
14Id., Ex. 6.

15Id., Ex. 5 at 8-9.

16Id., Ex. 5.

8

device suggested by OSHA that utilizes photoelectric or radio frequency presence-sensing, which

shut the machine down if the user or third party breaks the beam.14 Dr. Paul testified this technology

has been used for many years and is available from various companies.15 As an attachment to his

affidavit filed in support of plaintiff’s response to Harris’ motion to strike, Paul submits a drawing,

engineering sketch, and specifications for his design.16

In addition to testimony that the Harris baler was defectively designed because it lacked

certain safety features, Paul testified that there were inadequate warnings and instructions on how

to properly clear “jams,” and defectively designed baler control switches such that an operator

would believe that the position for the semi-automatic baling function is easily confused with the

“off” position. panel. Harris asserts Paul has not presented any alternatives for safer warnings or

instructions on how to clear jams in terms of language, size, shape, color or location, nor has he

identified the specific manner in which the control panel’s selector switches should have been

designed to alleviate his concerns about the current design creating confusion for the operator. In

addition, Harris argues that because Jordan was aware of the dangers involved with the baler and

walking up the conveyor to clear jams, plaintiff’s claim of defective warning/instruction is

inapplicable.

Dr. Paul testified that the three-position switch that controls the baler function (“auto” “semiauto” “manual”) was misleading and confusing and thus defectively designed. In particular, Paul

said that because the “middle” or “straight-up” position for the other switches on the control panel

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 8 of 20
9

correlate with “off,” designing the switch that controls the baler function in such a manner that the

“middle” or “straight-up” position correlates with “semi-auto” could lead an operator to conclude

incorrectly that the baler is “off” when it is in fact in the “semi-auto” mode. Mr. Henry Jobe, Harris’

Director of Engineering, testified, however, that if the control switch had, in fact, been in the middle

or “straight-up” position such that the baler was in the “semi-auto” mode, Jordan would not have

been crushed by the baler ram. According to Jobe, in order for the ram to have moved forward and

crushed Jordan after he fell into the hopper, George Ames, the baler operator, would have had to

press and hold the “cycle start” button. It is undisputed that Ames did not press any buttons after

Jordan fell into the hopper. The baler was in the “auto” mode at the time of the accident, which

means it was not in the “middle” or “straight-up” position. Defendant Harris argues that if Ames

had moved the switch to the “middle” or “semi-auto” position, thinking it was the “off” position,

the accident would not have happened.

According to Paul’s report, Ames stated he had the switches to the machine cut off before

Jordan went on top of the machine. All other switches on the control panel, when in the “straightup” position, were in “neutral” except for the baler control switch operated by Ames at the time of

the accident. Further, there is no dispute that the switch is mislabeled in the manual provided by

Harris. The switch has three positions on the baler’s control panel but is listed as a two-position

switch in the manual. Also, the switch has a “semi-auto” position that is not mentioned, defined,

or explained in the manual.

In reply, Harris argues Paul’s affidavit contains new and supplemental opinions that should

not be considered by the Court. In particular, Harris complains that Paul asserts a new theory of

liability, saying that Harris should have provided a catwalk or platform with the baler, which would

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 9 of 20
10

allow workers to clear jams. Further, Harris argues Paul now asserts that a surveillance camera

should have been added which would allow the baler operator to see different areas around the baler.

Although plaintiff states Paul’s design alternatives have been adopted and incorporated by various

manufacturers, Harris complains that not one baler manufacturer has implemented the design

alternatives recommended by Paul.

In Unrein v. Timesavers, Inc., 394 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2005), the court upheld the exclusion

of an expert’s testimony in a products liability case where the expert’s safety proposal had never

been tested and he had not prepared any drawings showing how his device would be integrated into

the machine or presented photographs showing its use with similar machines. In Jaurequi v. Carter

Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 1999), the court refused to allow an expert to testify that a corn

head attached to a combine was unreasonably dangerous because it had no awareness barriers. The

court said: “[The expert] has not attempted to construct or even draw the suggested device, much

less test its utility as a safety device or its compatibility with the corn head’s proper function. Nor

has he pointed to any manufacturer that incorporates awareness barriers into corn heads or similar

farming machinery. In short, he has provided no basis for us to believe that his opinions are

anything more than unabashed speculation.” Id. at 1084. In Peitzmeier v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 97

F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 1996), the court upheld the exclusion of an expert’s testimony where the expert

conceded he had never designed nor tested for safety or utility any of the proposed safety devices

that he claimed were missing from the machine in question. “His only demonstration of an

alternative design [was] a series of rough sketches that [had] not been adapted into engineering

drawings, much less prototypes.” Id. at 297.

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 10 of 20
17Pl’s. Resp. to Mot. Strike/Summ.J., Ex. 4 at 142-43.

18Id. at Ex. 8, 96-97; Ex. 11 at 95-6.

11

In McPike v. Corghi S.P.A., 87 F.Supp.2d 890 (E.D.Ark. 1999), the court allowed the

testimony of an expert who did not test the theory specifically in that case but where the record

reflected his proposed changes had been adopted and incorporated by various manufacturers over

the past several years. Here, Paul testified his design alternatives have been used in other types of

conveyor systems, and he submitted a drawing, engineering sketch, and specifications for his design.

He said he tested both physical gate interlocks and electronic eye interlocks on machines in New

York and New Hampshire.17 Devices such as a platform at the back of the hopper and an interlocked

interfaced door at the back of the hopper are used by Harris itself.18 

The Court finds, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid.. 702, that the motion to strike Paul as an expert

should be denied. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful

instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but

admissible evidence.” Lauzon v. Senco Products, Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 694 (8th Cir. 2001). The Court

finds, however, that Paul’s testimony must be confined to those design systems he discussed in his

November report, deposition, and affidavit, to the extent it summarizes and expounds on his earlier

II. IPS Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff alleges IPS is responsible for the death of Jordan because it sold the baler to

Jefferson County (a) without a safety interlock system on the conveyor/hopper area of the machine;

(b) without handrails or hand holds on the conveyor or sidewalls; (c) without well-marked baler

operating control switches; (d) without an appropriately designed conveyor to prevent jams at the

top of the conveyor; and (e) without emergency stop controls that automatically return the

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 11 of 20
12

compacting ram to a retracted position. Plaintiff also complains IPS failed to warn and instruct the

baling operators about the functions of the individual operating controls and failed to comply with

the applicable minimum safety standards for conveying, compacting, and baling equipment. 

Plaintiff claims IPS negligently supplied a defectively designed product. Separate defendant

IPS argues it is entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim because all of the alleged

defects are design-related and there is no duty for an intermediate supplier to redesign a product.

IPS argues it is entitled to partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s strict product liability claim

because even though an intermediate supplier may be strictly liable for supplying a defectively

designed product, that liability passes through to the manufacturer of the product via the

intermediate supplier’s statutory right of indemnity. Because there is no evidence that any alteration

or defect was created by IPS, it is entitled to summary judgment and indemnity from Harris on the

strict liability claims. 

IPS further argues there are no facts to establish a breach of warranty claim. It asserts there

is no evidence that the baler malfunctioned or that it was inadequate to serve its ordinary purpose

when the warnings given with the baler are heeded. Further, IPS argues that any breach of implied

warranty must fail under the terms of the purchase agreement, which limited such warranties to

repair and replacement of defective parts for a six-month period after the sale of the product. 

As to plaintiff’s failure to warn claims, IPS argues there is no evidence that any failure to

warn, whether stemming from an allegation that IPS supplied the product with inadequate warnings

or breached its duty to adequately train the employees, proximately caused the accident. There is

no evidence that the baler operators knew Jordan had climbed into the baler hopper, and Ronnie Via,

another operator, testified he hit an emergency stop and shut down the baler as soon as he realized

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 12 of 20
13

somebody was in the machine. It is also undisputed that Jordan was not trained to operate the baler,

that he climbed the conveyor and got into the hopper of the baler without the permission of his

supervisors, and the operators were never aware he climbed the conveyor. 

IPS asserts it is undisputed that the Harris operator manual contained all of the required

warnings and the machine itself was covered with warning decals. Mr. Via testified that Jefferson

County employees referred to the manual from time to time when they had questions. Mr. Ames

also testified that he and Via used the manual to figure out how to operate the baler. IPS argues it

is undisputed that IPS hired a competent independent contractor, Jim Fox, to train Jefferson County

workers, and that he provided training pursuant to the parties’ purchase agreement. Lastly, IPS

argues there is no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

In response, plaintiff asserts the baler/conveyor system IPS sold Jefferson County was

defective and unreasonably dangerous for three reasons: 1) IPS did not provide or offer a platform

with the system; 2) they did not install an interlock system to prevent someone from going up the

conveyor; and 3) the operator’s manual was defective and was directly responsible for confusion

which led to the accident. In reply, IPS contends it is the employer’s responsibility to provide an

OSHA-approved work platform, and there is evidence that Jefferson County has installed work

platforms in the past when needed. Further, IPS argues there is no evidence to show that the

presence or absence of the platform had anything to do with the accident, and there is no evidence

that any discrepancy in the operator’s manual was a proximate cause of the accident.

The Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute as to plaintiff’s claims

of liability against IPS. Although IPS contends it has no duty as the supplier to redesign a product,

under Arkansas law, if a supplier has reason to believe that a product is defective or is likely to have

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 13 of 20
19The system contained an interlock window for lower jams, but the upper hopper could not be

reached from there. See docket entry 59 [Pl’s Resp. In Opp. to Mot. Summ.. J.], Ex. 4 at 73.

20See Pl’s. Resp. to IPS Mot. Summ. J. [docket entry 59], Ex. 1 (Attach. to Jobe Dep.).

21Id., Ex. 3.

22Id., Ex. 1 at 139.

23Id.., p 12 of Ex. 9 (Attach. To Ex. 3-Karvelis Dep). 

14

a defect which would make the product dangerous when used for a purpose or in a manner which

the seller should reasonably foresee, then the seller has a duty to make a reasonable inspection of

the product to protect those who will use it. Green v. Equitable Powder Mfg. Co., 95 F.Supp. 127

(W.D.Ark. 1951); AMI 1006. There is evidence from which a jury could find that when IPS sold

the system to Jefferson County and installed it, there was only one way to get to the top of the

hopper and that was to walk up the conveyor.19 Because jams often occur at the opening of the

hopper, IPS knew workers might use the conveyor as a means of access to the jam or blockage. 

Documents that Harris relies on state that platforms incorporating stairs and standard railings should

be provided near the openings of hoppers to allow safe access for clearing jams.20 Separate

defendant Harris’ expert Dr. Karvelis testified that when this machine was sold to Jefferson County,

access to the baler/hopper required a manual lift, scaffold, or ladder. He also said that when one

installs a system, he needs to figure out what is appropriate for its location.21 Mr. Jobe testified that

at the time of the accident, the baler was not in compliance with ANSI Standards.22 ANSI Standard

ASNI Z245.2 (4.3) 1997 states any person reconstructing stationary compactors after the effective

date of the standard (1997) shall do so in compliance with all clauses of the standard.23 According

to Dr. Paul, if a system is not properly designed, it should have a proper interlock system installed

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 14 of 20
24Id.., Ex. 5 at 164-65.

25Id., Ex. 7 at 20, 25, 32.

15

when it is resold.24 Further, there is no dispute that the manual was incorrect in that the switch on

the baler had three positions, including a semi-auto position whereas the manual shows only a twoposition switch on the control panel and does not mention or define the semi-auto position. Because

there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the system and the manual were

defective at the time of the accident, IPS is not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim

of strict product liability. 

Further, there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to whether the system was

unreasonably dangerous when it was sold to Jefferson County, that IPS knew or reasonably should

have known of the danger, and whether the dangerous system was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s

damages.

As to plaintiff’s claim that IPS failed to warn and instruct, IPS insists there is no evidence

that any failure to warn or instruct proximately caused the accident. The Court finds, however, that

there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that IPS’s use of an incorrect manual to

train employees, Ames’ testimony that IPS never gave him any materials, that he received only two

to three hours of training, did not recall being trained about “lock out and tag out” procedures, and

that he would use the manual to figure out how to operate the baler25 is evidence from which a jury

could find IPS failed to properly instruct. As to proximate cause, Ames testified that before Jordan

went on top of the machine, he had the switches to the machine cut off, but all the switches on the

control panel, except for the baler control switch, were in “neutral” when in the straight-up position.

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 15 of 20
26Id., Ex. 6 at 117.

27Id., Ex. 4 at 83.

28In order to prove a breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the plaintiff must prove

he sustained damages; that at the time of contracting, the defendant had reason to know the particular purpose

for which the product was required; that defendant knew the buyer was relying on defendant’s skill or

judgment to select of furnish a suitable product; that the product was not fit for the particular purpose for

which it was required; that the unfitness was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages; and that the plaintiff

was a person whom defendant would reasonably have expected to use or be affected by the product. AMI

1013.

29Id., Ex. 11 at 66.

30Id., Ex.1 at 41-43.

16

 In support of his response to IPS’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of failure

to warn, plaintiff points to Fox’s testimony that he had been in the business for 25 years but had

heard of only an instance or two of someone being injured on a baler-type machine26 when in fact

there were dozens of deaths and numerous injuries. Mr. Tom Tidwell, described by plaintiff as

Jefferson County’s main liaison with IPS, was present for all of the training sessions and testified

he was never told about any other accidents on balers with people going up the conveyor belt.27 The

Court finds there is some evidence from which a reasonable jury could find IPS failed to reasonably

and adequately warn of the dangers of the system it installed. Therefore, the motion is denied on

this claim.

The Court further finds that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute as to plaintiff’s

claim of breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.28 Mr. Jack Jones, Jefferson

County Judge, testified that he was led to believe that the baling system was in the same condition

as it was when it left the manufacturing plant.29 Upon inspection after the accident, however, it was

noted that the conveyor extended into the hopper, causing the machine to jam up more easily.30 In

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 16 of 20
17

addition, plaintiff argues IPS never mentioned the need for a work platform to provide access to the

hopper. 

III. Harris’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff asserts three separate grounds for recovery against Harris: strict product liability,

negligence, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. As to his strict product liability

claims, plaintiff alleges defective design and defective warnings and instructions.

Because the Court has determined that Paul should be allowed to testify, there are disputed

issues of material fact as to the defectiveness of the product and negligence. Plaintiff bases his

breach of warranty of merchantability claim on the inaccurate manual Harris supplied with the baler

and the lack of means to approach the hopper other than where the conveyor meets it. Plaintiff

asserts the baler was not merchantable because the manual made no mention of the need for a

platform, the semi-automatic switch, or how to clear jams. “To be merchantable, a product must be

fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used and be adequately contained, packaged,

and labeled.” AMI 1013. The Court finds there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether

the baler was merchantable and whether the alleged unmerchantable condition was a proximate

cause of plaintiff’s damages.

IV. Punitive Damages

Both Harris and IPS move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

They contend there is no evidence from which a jury could find that they acted wantonly in causing

Jordan’s death or with such conscious indifference to the consequences that malice may be inferred.

Punitive damages are ‘not a favorite of the law’ in Arkansas. An award of punitive

damages is justified ‘only where the evidence indicates that the defendant acted

wantonly in causing the injury or with such a conscious indifference to the

consequences that malice may be inferred.’ Gross negligence is not sufficient.

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 17 of 20
31Pl’s. Resp. Mot. Summ. J. on Punitive Damages [docket entry 65], Ex. 1 at 12, 15-16.

32Id. at 28. 

33Id. at 18.

18

Rather, ‘it must appear that the negligent party knew, or had reason to believe, that

his act of negligence was about to inflict injury, and that he continued in his course

with a conscious indifference to the consequences, from which malice may be

inferred.’ A claim for punitive damages is properly submitted to the jury under

Arkansas law where the claim is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’

Morris v. Union Pacific R.R., 373 F.3d 896, 903 (8th Cir. 2004). See also Lockley v. Deere & Co.,

933 F.2d 1378, 1389 (8th Cir. 1991)(punitive damages appropriate when defendant “knew or should

have known that its course of conduct was about to inflict injury and yet continued its activities with

conscious indifference to the consequences”).

Plaintiff argues that Harris has known of dangers associated with balers for over fifteen

years. Dr. Paul testified that at one time, the solid waste collection processing industry was the

second most unsafe industry in the United States. Mr. Jobe said that since 1990, he has testified in

at least 25 injury or death cases for Harris and is aware of five deaths on Harris baling machines,

three of those deaths occurring on the same type of two ram horizontal baler involved in this

lawsuit.31 Mr. Jobe testified Harris made only sixteen of this model baler. 32 Plaintiff points to a

2003 alert from NIOSH disclosing 34 compactor-related fatalities from 1992 through 2000, in which

the victim was caught in or crushed by the compacting ram of a machine, and argues the numbers

of injuries caused by Harris baling machines are so large that Jobe would not even guess at the

number.33 Plaintiff questions Harris’ failure to maintain records of injuries or deaths as well as

problems, complaints, or requested changes by people who use or own their machines and suggests

Harris may have intentionally destroyed records. 

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 18 of 20
19

As evidence of alleged conscious disregard, plaintiff asserts there have been no changes in

the baler at issue or its progeny, and Harris has not attempted to implement safety changes known

in the industry or recommended by the government. Although Harris admitted it looked at ways to

protect the unintentional entry into the baling chamber, and prior to the accident had discussed

theories presented by Paul, it said it had not found a measure that was reliable or that would work.

Plaintiff also complains that Harris put no instructions, guidance, or warnings in its manual about

how to unjam the opening of the hopper, and the manual does not mention the need for platforms.

According to plaintiff, the baler was equipped with two “automatic eyes.” When the eyes

are open, i.e. there is no material blocking the light ray, the ram stops operation. When the eye is

broken by material, the machine notifies the ram to operate. When the conveyor is off (as was the

case in Jordan’s accident) and the eyes are not blocked, the ram is not operating and the machine

appears to be “sleeping.” To Jordan, the machine appeared to be “off” but in reality it was only

“sleeping.” When he tripped or fell into the hopper, he broke the electric eye, which told the ram

to go forward. Plaintiff argues that even though a NIOSH report suggests all machines be equipped

with safety interlock devices that would immediately stop the machine should a worker attempt to

gain access to a ram or the travel zone of a ram while the machine is operating, Harris has never

taken steps to correct the “sleeping giant” problem or warn about it. Plaintiff argues evidence that

Harris’ design engineers are not informed of deaths and injuries on their balers shows a conscious

indifference, asserts Harris has decided it is cheaper to pay compensatory damages rather than

improve the safety of balers. This assertion is based upon Jobe’s testimony that although he has

testified in 25-30 depositions, he has never testified at trial, and the fact that Harris has hired expert

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 19 of 20
20

Karvelis in four lawsuits but has never hired his engineering firm to offer guidance or assistance in

making their product safer. 

In support of his claim for punitive damages against IPS, plaintiff argues IPS knew or should

have known there were at least 34 fatalities between 1992 and 2000, in which victims were caught

or crushed by the compacting ram of a baler, yet it provided no platform or interlock system which

would have prevented a Jefferson County employee from proceeding up the conveyor to the hopper

area and be directly exposed to the crushing compactor rams of the machine. Further, plaintiff

argues IPS’ failure to warn Jefferson County of the injuries and death that had occurred with this

particular baler is evidence of its reckless disregard for the safety of users. 

The Court finds the remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to plaintiff’s

entitlement to punitive damages. The Court finds there is evidence from which a reasonable jury

could find that Harris or IPS acted with conscious indifference to the safety of others.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, defendants’ motions for summary judgment [docket entries 46, 49,

and 52] and defendants’ motions to strike [docket entry 49 and 55] are hereby denied. Plaintiff’s

motion to adopt and substitute [docket entry 73] and supplemental motion for leave to file motion

and incorporated brief [docket entry 74] are granted.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of November 2005.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00006-SWW Document 84 Filed 11/10/05 Page 20 of 20