Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03668/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03668-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandtjen & Kluge
Appellee
Barbara Robinson
Appellant
Kent Robinson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3668

___________

Barbara Robinson; Kent Robinson, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota 

Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., * 

*

Appellee. * 

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2007

 Filed: September 11, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Barbara Robinson and her husband Kent sued Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.,

(“B&K”), alleging causes of action based on strict products liability and negligence,

as well as a derivative claim based on loss of consortium and a claim for punitive

damages. The district court1

 granted summary judgment for B&K, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-2-

I.

Barbara Robinson (“Robinson”) worked at Clark Printing, Inc., a printing

business in Spearfish, South Dakota. Clark Printing owned a printing press

manufactured by B&K in 1939. While Robinson was operating the press in December

2001, her hand became lodged between the two large surfaces of the press, and she

suffered severe injury to her hand. Robinson and her husband brought this diversity

action against B&K, alleging negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium under

South Dakota law.

The press was a Kluge 6 Roller Automatic Platen Printing Press, which B&K

sold in 1940 to a newspaper in Deadwood, South Dakota. Clark Printing acquired the

press over fifty years later, in 1991 or 1992. B&K had designed the press for

automatic feeding, a mechanical process in which paper is fed by a mechanical arm

onto one large surface, called a “platen,” before it rises to meet a second surface,

called the “bed,” which stores typeface that prints onto the paper. After the printing

occurs, the surfaces separate, a second mechanical arm removes the paper, and the

first arm then moves another piece of paper onto the platen for the next printing. 

Even with the automatic feeder, however, an operator was required to use the

press manually during what is described as the “make-ready” process. During this

process, a test sheet of paper is printed to ensure that the press is set properly for a

series of papers to be printed through use of the automatic feeder. The B&K operating

instructions explained the steps necessary for the operator to disable the automatic

feeder in order to undertake the make-ready process, stating that after these steps are

completed, “[t]he press may now be operated in the same manner as an open press.”

(Robinson App. 238). The instructions contemplate that once this make-ready process

is completed, the operator will reattach the automatic feeder for mechanical operation.

(Id. at 236). 

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-3-

In 1996 or 1997, Clark Printing converted the press from a printing press to a

foil stamping press. The foil stamping process used heat to transfer gold or silver,

rather than ink, onto paper. After this conversion, Clark Printing employees fed the

machine exclusively by hand. Ivan Clark, the founder and owner of Clark Printing,

testified that manual feeding was more efficient for typical foil stamping jobs, most

of which tended to be “short-run” jobs. 

Robinson began working for Clark Printing in 1998, but had never operated the

press before her injury. Janet Davidson, another employee at the firm, usually

operated the press, but on December 7, 2001, a supervisor asked Davidson to perform

another task and directed Robinson to perform a foil stamping job. Davidson testified

that she “did not feel comfortable” with Robinson operating the press, citing the

dangerous nature of the machine and Robinson’s lack of experience operating it, but

that Clark ordered her to show Robinson how to use it. (Id. at 277).

Robinson received only five to ten minutes’ training, and no safety instruction,

before beginning to operate the press. Robinson testified that she was unaware of the

risk of feeding the press by hand, and instead focused her efforts on printing the job

properly. After about fifteen minutes of operating the press, Robinson’s hand became

caught between the platen and the bed. Davidson quickly freed Robinson’s hand, but

the hand was nonetheless severely injured.

South Dakota’s law limited the Robinsons’ recovery against Clark Printing to

claims for workers’ compensation. S.D. Codified Laws § 62-3-2. The Robinsons

brought suit against B&K, alleging that the machine was defectively designed and that

B&K failed to warn of the defects. 

The district court granted summary judgment for B&K on all claims. On the

strict liability claim, the court concluded that Clark Printing modified the press by

removing the automatic feeder, and that this modification was not reasonably

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-4-

foreseeable by B&K. Accordingly, the court held that B&K had immunity from

liability for product defects or failure to warn under S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-10(3).

On the negligence claim, the district court concluded as a matter of law that Clark

Printing’s modification of the press was a superseding, intervening cause that shifted

liability from B&K to Clark Printing. The court also held that B&K was not liable for

a post-sale failure to warn, because B&K had no duty to identify Robinson as a party

to be warned, and, alternatively, because B&K had provided adequate warnings to

Clark Printing. The court dismissed the claims for loss of consortium and punitive

damages, because they depended on an underlying finding of strict liability or

negligence. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, taking

the facts in the light most favorable to the Robinsons. 

II.

The Robinsons first challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment

on their products liability claim. B&K defends the judgment on two alternative

grounds. It argues that the district court correctly ruled that Clark Printing radically

altered the press in a manner that was unforeseeable to B&K and, alternatively, that

there was insufficient evidence to prove that the press was defective when it was sold

by B&K in 1940. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see Pro

Service Auto., LLC v. Lenan Corp., 469 F.3d 1210, 1213 (8th Cir. 2006), and we find

B&K’s second theory persuasive.

South Dakota has adopted the rule of strict products liability as stated in the

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). Engberg v. Ford Motor Co., 205

N.W.2d 104, 109 (S.D. 1973). Section 402A makes liable “one who sells any product

in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his

property.” The Supreme Court of South Dakota has not elaborated on how “defective

condition” should be defined, but it has adopted section 402A of the Restatement, and

that section endorses the so-called “consumer expectations test.” The commentary to

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-5-

section 402A provides that a product is defective if it leaves the seller “in a condition

not contemplated by the ultimate consumer, which will be unreasonably dangerous to

him.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. g. A product is “unreasonably

dangerous” where it is dangerous “to an extent beyond that which would be

contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary

knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Id., cmt. i.

The Robinsons assert that B&K was responsible for two alleged defects in the

press: (1) the failure to include a detachable point-of-operation guard to protect the

user during manual operation of the automatic feeding press, and (2) the failure to

warn users not to feed the press manually. We conclude as a matter of law that neither

aspect of the product rendered it defective when it left B&K.

We come to this case in 2007, but we must consider whether there is sufficient

evidence to support a finding that the B&K press was defective when it was sold more

than sixty-five years ago, in 1940. We find instructive the analysis of the Fourth

Circuit, in similar circumstances, concerning a claim for strict liability under the

standards of section 402A of the Restatement. That court observed that it is

inappropriate to superimpose contemporary standards of safety on an earlier era: “In

short, a product can only be defective if it is imperfect when measured against a

standard existing at the time of sale or against reasonable consumer expectations held

at the time of sale.” Sexton v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 926 F.2d 331, 337 (4th Cir. 1991).

To determine what was defective in an earlier period, we look to evidence of the

industry practice at the time, any direct evidence of what reasonable purchasers

expected, and other evidence concerning injuries or knowledge of the dangers of the

product in that time. “While conformity with industry practice is not conclusive of

the product’s safety, because an industry could adopt a careless standard, the cases

where a member of an industry will be held liable for failing to do what no one in his

position has ever done before will be infrequent.” Id. at 336 (internal quotation

omitted). Consistent with this interpretation of section 402A, South Dakota law

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-6-

provides that conformity with the prevailing state of the art existing at the time the

product was first sold may be considered in determining whether a product was in a

defective condition or unreasonably dangerous. S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-10.1.

By 1940, the danger of operating a manual press was apparently well-known,

and the industry had developed safety mechanisms in response. The automatic feeder

was a major safety advance, because it allowed printing or stamping to occur without

requiring the operator’s hands to be placed between the platen and the bed. There is

also evidence that a point-of-operation guard was recommended for use with

manually-operated presses. An “Industrial Safety Pamphlet” published in 1936 by

the National Safety Council in Chicago warned that “[a]n automatic platen guard

should . . . be provided to prevent the feeder’s hand or arm from being caught between

the platen and the bed of the press.” (Robinson App. 215). 

The record shows, however, that these devices were viewed as alternative safety

measures. American safety standards for job platen presses as late as the 1970s and

1980s required either an automatic feeder or a point-of-operation guard, but not both,

to protect the operator against injury. Both New York and California mandated that

job platen presses with or without mechanical power be provided with one of the

following: (a) “an automatic feed which does not require the operator’s hands to be

placed between the platen and bed,” (b) an automatic stop to prevent the platen from

closing if the operator’s hand is caught, or (c) a guard or gate that will throw the

operator’s hand out of the way. See 12 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, § 19.20

(1971) (reprinted at B&K App., Ex. R); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 4436 (1986) (B&K

App., Ex. R). A Handbook of Industrial Safety Standards published by the

Association of Casualty and Surety Companies in 1954 likewise said that one of those

three devices should be provided on each platen press. (B&K App., Ex. R). An

advisory memorandum in 1980 from the United States Department of Education,

Office of Vocational and Adult Education, to state officials similarly remarked that

“[a]lternative safeguarding devices”were available for platen presses, including “[t]he

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-7-

application of a presence sensing device, a pull out device, a hold out or restraint

device, and/or an automatic feed.” (Id.) 

The Robinsons’ contention is that B&K in 1940 was required to include both

an automatic feeder and a point-of-operation guard on its machine. In support of this

view, the Robinsons’ expert declared that it was “technologically and economically

feasible” in 1939 to design a point-of-operation guard, and that “a guard could have

been designed in 1939 so it would not interfere when the mechanical feeder was

used.” (Robinson App. 329). The expert envisioned a guard that “would consist of

the commonly used pop-up platen guard with detachable actuating rods that would be

installed when the press was hand fed.” (Id.). He opined that without this safety

feature, or a warning not to feed the press manually, the press was defective. (Id. at

329-30). The Robinsons also point to a 1938 agreement among members of the

“Platen Machine Committee” in Great Britain, which said that a machine fitted with

a removable automatic feeding attachment should be provided with a guard for use

when the machine is fed by hand. (Id. at 231). The chairman of B&K, by contrast,

averred that “it was not possible to guard this type of platen printing press for use as

both an automatic press and as a manually-fed press.” (B&K App., Ex. 1, at 11). He

asserted that any platen guard in 1939 “would have interfered with the operation of

an automatic feeder and would not have survived the rigors of high-speed automatic

operation for any reasonable length of time.” (Id.).

We conclude as a matter of law that the lack of a detachable guard for use

during manual feeding did not render the B&K press defective in 1940. While a

manufacturer has a duty to design a product that is reasonably safe for its foreseeable

use, it is not required to design the “best possible product,” and “proof that technology

existed, which if implemented could feasibly have avoided a dangerous condition,

does not alone establish a defect.” Sexton, 926 F.2d at 336 (internal quotations

omitted). The B&K press was designed for use with an automatic feeder, which

provided protection to the operator. The press could be converted for manual use

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
2

It is unclear whether South Dakota has adopted, or would adopt, the so-called

“risk-utility test,” in addition to the consumer expectations test of section 402A, for

determining the existence of a defective condition. Cf. First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft

Enters., Inc., 686 N.W.2d 430, 444-45 (S.D. 2004); Peterson v. Safway Steel Scaffolds

Co., 400 N.W.2d 909, 913 (S.D. 1987); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product

Liability § 2(b). To the extent that the risk-utility test is an available theory, the

conclusory assertions of the Robinsons’ expert – that “it was technologically and

economically feasible in 1939 to design a platen press with point of operation

guarding,” and that “a guard could have been designed in 1939 so it would not

interfere when the mechanical feeder was used” – are not sufficient to create a

submissible case. The record includes no evidence concerning the cost of designing

a detachable platen guard in 1940, the likely effect of such a feature on the price of a

press in 1940, or the likely effect of an increase in price on marketability of the press.

Nor is there evidence that would shed light on the overall utility of such a design, such

as the frequency with which operators in 1940 would make manual use of a press with

an automatic feeder, or the number of injuries incurred as a result of any such use.

-8-

during the make-ready process, but the automatic feeder was available for use when

the operator printed or stamped multiple papers or objects. The Robinsons have not

provided evidence that the American platen press industry had adopted a standard that

included multiple layers of safety mechanisms as of 1940, or that consumers expected

this level of protection. There is no evidence of a single platen press in the United

States in 1940 that was equipped with both an automatic feeder and a point-ofoperation guard. And as we have recounted, the applicable regulatory standards in the

United States did not mandate this design even three decades later. For these reasons,

we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to find that the press was defective in

light of reasonable consumer expectations of the time.2

We also reject the Robinsons’ assertion that the failure to warn purchasers of

the dangers of manually operating a press with an automatic feeder rendered the press

defective. South Dakota law does not require a manufacturer to provide a warning

when the product’s danger is open and obvious. Brech v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 698

F.2d 332, 335 (8th Cir. 1983); see also Berg v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 355 N.W.2d 833, 836-

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-9-

37 (S.D. 1984). The danger of placing one’s hand between two massive and

converging metal surfaces is sufficiently obvious that no warning is necessary. The

hazard was “well known” in the industry in the early twentieth century, (Robinson

App. 156), and Janet Davidson of Clark Printing testified that “anybody would know”

that the platen and bed were “coming together with force and pressure, and that

somebody’s hand was going in between it when it was coming to and from.” (Id. at

179). There is no evidence that other manufacturers of presses with automatic feeders

provided similar warnings to customers in the 1930s and 1940s, and we see no

evidentiary basis to find that consumers would have expected a warning from this

open and obvious danger. We thus conclude that the absence of a warning cannot

establish that the press was in a defective condition when B&K sold it.

The Robinsons also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment on

their negligence claims. They allege that B&K designed the press negligently and was

negligent in failing to warn users that operating the press manually could be

dangerous. Because these allegations were the basis of the Robinsons’ strict liability

claims, our conclusion that the product was not defective in 1940 necessitates a

finding that B&K did not act negligently in 1940. Without valid strict liability claims,

the Robinsons’ negligence claims necessarily fail. See Restatement (Third) of Torts:

Products Liability § 2 cmt. n; Sexton, 926 F.2d at 335 (“[W]hen a product liability

claim is based on a design defect, the articulation of liability, whether based on a

negligent breach of a duty of care or on strict liability, reduces to the single question

of whether the product was defective.”). If the product’s design did not render it

unreasonably dangerous, B&K cannot be said to have designed the product

negligently. Similarly, B & K’s failure to warn cannot be negligent where it does not

render the product “unreasonably dangerous” relative to consumer expectations of the

time.

The Robinsons next argue that B&K was negligent in failing to warn Clark

Printing in the 1990s of the risk of operating the press manually. This claim relies on

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-10-

South Dakota law providing a remedy for a negligent post-sale failure to warn. In

Novak v. Navistar Int’l Trans. Corp., 46 F.3d 844, 850 (8th Cir. 1995), we held that

South Dakota law permitted recovery under this theory of liability. See also

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 10 (1998). The district court

nonetheless rejected the Robinsons’ claim, because the court concluded that B&K had

undertaken a substantial warning campaign and that, in any event, there was no duty

to warn Clark Printing under these circumstances.

We agree with the district court that B&K did not breach a post-sale duty to

warn in this case. B&K had sold the press in 1940 to a newspaper in Deadwood,

South Dakota, over fifty years before Clark Printing came into possession of the press.

Given the passage of time, it would be unreasonable to require B&K to identify all

owners of its platen presses. Liability for a post-sale failure to warn requires a finding

“that product sellers can practically and efficiently discharge such an obligation and

that the risks of harm are sufficiently great to justify what is typically a substantial

post-sale undertaking.” Id., cmt. a. Sales records from the 1940s would have been of

little help to B&K in identifying owners of its presses in 2001. By the time the current

owner acquired the press, Clark Printing was a “member of a universe too diffuse and

too large for manufacturers or sellers of original equipment to identify.” Lewis v.

Ariens Co., 751 N.E.2d 862, 867 (Mass. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). In this

case, moreover, there is undisputed evidence that B&K did undertake a post-sale

warning campaign, (B&K App., Ex. 1, at 14-15), and that the owner of Clark Printing,

as well as the previous owner of the press, received actual notice of the warning.

(Robinson App. 137-38). Whatever the scope of the post-sale duty to warn, it does

not extend to warning each individual employee of a company that owns a press some

sixty-one years after the sale. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed this

claim.

The Robinsons’ claims for loss of consortium and punitive damages are

derivative in nature. Budahl v. Gordon & David Assocs., 287 N.W.2d 489, 493 (S.D.

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243
-11-

1980) (claim for loss of consortium “depends on the validity of the main claim”);

Risse v. Meeks, 585 N.W.2d 875, 883 (S.D. 1998) (“[A] claim for punitive damages

must be based on some underlying cause of action, since, as a general rule, there is no

separate and distinct cause of action for exemplary damages.”) (internal quotation

omitted). Because the district court correctly dismissed the underlying substantive

claims, it properly dismissed these claims as well.

* * *

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3668 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/11/2007 Entry ID: 3350243