Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01067/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Appellee
Patricia Ray
Appellant
Ronald M. Ward & Associates Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

·renth Circuit 

OCT 2 6 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

PATRICIA RAY, Individually ) 

and as Personal Representative ) 

of the Estate of Paul Steven ) 

Ray, and as Next Friend of Roy ) 

Steven Ray and Heather Florence) 

Ray, Minor Children, ) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 

Delaware Corporation; RONALD 

WARD; RONALD M. WARD & 

ASSOCIATES INC., a Florida 

Corporation; WARD SERVICES, 

INC., a Florida Corporation; 

and BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING 

ENGINEERS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

PATRICIA RAY, Individually 

and as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of Paul Steven 

Ray, and as Next Friend of Roy 

Steven Ray and Heather Florence 

Ray, Minor Children, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC., 

Delaware Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

RONALD WARD; RONALD M. WARD & 

ASSOCIATES INC., a Florida 

Corporation; WARD SERVICES 

INC., a Florida Corporation; 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-1067 

(D.C. No. 87-DC-944) 

(D. Colorado) 

No. 89-1076 

(D.C. No. 87-DC-944) 

(D. Colorado) 

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 1 
and BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING ) 

ENGINEERS, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, District 

Judge.** 

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant, 

Combustion Engineering, Inc. (CE), in a diversity products 

liability case. Paul Ray, husband of plaintiff, Patricia Ray, was 

killed while attempting routine maintenance upon a massive machine 

manufactured by defendant. Ms. Ray's action is for wrongful death 

based upon theories of strict liability for failing to instruct on 

proper maintenance procedures or to warn of dangers created by 

improper procedures. She appeals the district court's order of a 

directed verdict on causation and summary judgment on the Colorado 

statute of limitations. We reverse the summary judgment and 

affirm the directed verdict. 

Paul Ray was killed in a rigging incident while working at a 

power plant operated by Platte River Power Authority. The 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**The Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief District Judge for the 

District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 2 
incident occurred when a crew supervised by Mr. Ray was removing a 

journal door on a coal mill manufactured by CE. A coal mill is a 

large cylinder or tank in which lumps of coal are pulverized into 

fine powder for use in the power plant. The journals are massive 

grinding wheels or crushers which grind the coal. The coal mills 

require routine maintenance, including the opening of journal 

covers and removing the journals. 

CE published an instruction manual which includes two methods 

for removing the journal assemblies. One method involves a tiltout hydraulic system and the other uses a two-step rigging 

procedure. Platte River employees never followed these 

instructions. Instead, Platte River mechanics devised their own 

system for opening and closing the journal covers and removing the 

journal assemblies. Testimony established these practices 

culminated in a standard Platte River method which all witnesses 

agreed was safe. 

Although Mr. Ray knew of the Platte River method of rigging 

journal doors, he developed his own procedure using an overhead 

crane and several cables. Mr. Ray used his method many times 

before his death, despite the counsel of his supervisor, Greg 

Wharton, who advised against its use. 

On the occasion of the fatal incident, Mr. Ray had removed 

two journal assemblies when, in the course of replacing a third, 

the crane "overran" the come-along, the rigging broke, and the 

journal assembly slammed shut. Mr. Ray, who was standing in the 

pinch point between the journal cover and the mill-housing, was 

killed by the impact. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 3 
Ms. Ray sued for wrongful death in her individual capacity, 

as personal representative of her husband's estate, and as next 

friend of their minor children. Based upon a one-year statute of 

limitations for wrongful death, the district court granted summary 

judgment against Ms. Ray in her individual capacity. The court 

reasoned Ms. Ray filed her complaint too late because the claim 

arose and the statute of limitations began to run on the day of 

Mr. Ray's death. At the time of the court's ruling, Colorado law 

was unclear, and the district court followed one of two divergent 

paths to its conclusion. Since that time, however, the Colorado 

Court of Appeals has clarified that the statute of limitations 

does not begin to run until the day after the act giving rise to 

the claim. Cade v. Regensberger, P. 2d , WL 101045 (Colo. 

App. 1990). As a consequence of that ruling, Ms. Ray's claim was 

timely filed, and the contrary judgment of the district court must 

be reversed. 1 

We must, however, conclude the trial court properly directed 

the verdict. Consideration of such orders requires that we view 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party. Cockrell v. Boise Cascade 

Corp., 781 F.2d 173, 177 (10th Cir. 1986). A directed verdict 

will not be overturned unless we find the trial court's evaluation 

of the evidence was clearly erroneous. Brown v. Reardon, 770 F.2d 

896, 903 (10th Cir. 1985). 

1 CE suggested at oral argument Ms. Ray's further pursuit of her 

claim is barred by res j udicata, and that we should so hold. 

Because resolution of that issue may lie beyond the record, we 

decline the invitation. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 4 
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by both 

sides, the trial court viewed the evidence and determined there 

was no proof of causal connection between the incident causing Mr. 

Ray's death and the acts of CE. The court stated: 

It is therefore apparent that while the defendant 

Combustion Engineering held a duty to provide adequate 

instructions and that they failed to do so, or I should 

say even if one can hold that they failed to do so, the 

evidence clearly establishes without contradiction that 

Mr. Ray did not read them, even he had, [sic] would not 

have followed them. 

There having been an established safe procedure 

with directions to follow, which he failed to do, and 

that in the Court's opinion there is no causal relationship or connection between the fail~re of duty to 

provide warnings and instructions or other accessories, 

thus there being a failure of causal connection, 

defendant is entitled to a directed verdict, and I so 

order. 

Plaintiff argues this ruling was improper because the evidence 

supports an inference that had proper instructions and warnings 

been issued by CE, Mr. Ray would not have been killed. We 

d . 2 isagree. 

The evidence is remarkably clear that Mr. Ray chose the 

rigging method that caused his death. It is also clear that this 

method was used only by him, that it was inherently unsafe, and 

that Mr. Ray knew it was unsafe. Moreover, plaintiff's own expert 

stated the cable used by Mr. Ray to attach the snatch block to the 

2Plaintiff argues that comment j to § 402A of the Restatement 

(Second) of Torts, which states "where warning is given, the 

seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded," 

gives rise to a presumption that had the CE manual contained 

appropriate rigging instructions Mr. Ray would have read and 

followed them. Plaintiff does not cite any Colorado law (which 

governs this case) in support of her argument. Indeed, Colorado 

law is to the contrary. Potthoff v. Alms, 583 P.2d 309, 311 

(Colo. App. 1978). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 5 
I-beam of the floor was too small to bear the load of the door, 

and it was fastened in a choke hitch rather than a basket hitch 

which is much safer. It is further unquestioned that only in the 

fatal instance did Mr. Ray ever employ either the small cable or 

the choke hitch. Therefore, even viewing the evidence in a light 

most favorable to plaintiff, we find nothing in the record which 

suggests a basis upon which a jury could have reached a 

plaintiff's verdict. 

Critical to plaintiff's case is the question whether Mr. Ray 

knew that his rigging system was unsafe. Greg Wharton, Mr. Ray's 

supervisor, testified he had a conversation with Mr. Ray 

about a year, to a year and a half before Paul was 

killed. The procedure -- he came into my office one day 

and said that he had an easier way of pulling mill doors 

open. So I asked him, "Let's hear it." And he 

proceeded to start telling me about it. . . . (A]t 

that point, I saw where he was going to be in jeopardy 

of being into the flange area of the door. So I told 

him that it didn't look safe to me, and I didn't want 

him to use it. 

Mr. Wharton further testified he told Mr. Ray "with the weight of 

the door, and the way he had it (the rigging] arranged, that he 

could break the come-along and the door would slam open or shut." 

Plaintiff argues this testimony should be disregarded because Mr. 

Wharton was impeached. Plaintiff claims Mr. Wharton testified 

differently during trial and upon deposition. At trial he was 

asked whether he had seen Mr. Ray read "those Combustion 

Engineering manuals." Mr. Wharton responded, "I don't remember if 

I saw him read those or not." Counsel demonstrated that at his 

deposition Mr. Wharton was asked and answered: 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 6 
Question: "Do you know whether Mr. Ray ever read the CE 

manuals?" 

Answer: 

it?" 

"As far as sitting down and reading through 

Question: "Uh-huh. " 

Answer: "At one time? Or II 

Question: "At any time." 

Answer: "Yes, he got information out of the CE 

manuals."3 

We cannot agree with plaintiff's counsel that these statements so 

impeached Mr. Wharton that his general credibility was destroyed 

and his testimony about his warning to Mr. Ray should be 

disregarded. Suffice that we see nothing discrediting in Mr. 

Wharton's inability to recall at trial that Mr. Ray had read the 

manuals. This inability is not contrary to Mr. Wharton's 

deposition testimony that Mr. Ray "got information" from the 

manuals. 4 

As a consequence, it stands uncontroverted that Mr. Ray was 

told his method was dangerous because the rigging could break, and 

3Plaintiff's counsel interprets this statement as clear evidence 

Mr. Ray read the manuals. Actually, the statement is ambiguous 

because how Mr. Ray "got" the information is unclear. Taking the 

statement in context, we do not know whether he "got" the 

information by reading it himself or whether someone else read it 

and passed the information on to Mr. Ray. The meaning of the word 

"got" is unclear, and the burden of failing to clarify this 

response must fall on the plaintiff. 

4 As correctly noted by CE's counsel during trial, a witness who 

cannot recall an event during trial is not impeached by showing he 

could recall at a prior time. At most, the deposition could have 

been used to refresh Mr. Wharton's recollection but not to impeach 

him. We are not dealing here with a witness who professes a 

general inability to recall. Rather, he was unable to recall only 

isolated incidents about which he had been able to testify at his 

deposition. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 7 
that he proceeded nonetheless. It is further uncontroverted that 

the warning he received from his supervisor did not deter Mr. Ray 

from using a method plaintiff's expert concluded incorporated many 

"mistakes" that were contrary to accepted standards of rigging. 

Furthermore, it is uncontroverted Mr. Ray's method was less 

physically taxing than the method used by every other mechanic at 

the Platte River plant. Under these circumstances, it does not 

appear plaintiff was entitled to inferences that "warnings" or 

"instructions" issued by CE would have prevented Mr. Ray's death. 

Those inferences simply do not flow from the uncontradicted facts 

in evidence. 

The facts do, however, support the inference Mr. Ray employed 

his method because it took less effort and that he did not use the 

accepted method because it was more difficult. That inference 

results in the conclusion any warnings or instructions contained 

in a manual authored by CE would not have prevented Mr. Ray's 

death. 

In similar circumstances, Colorado courts have held that it 

was improper to submit a failure to warn case to a jury where (a) 

the dangerous condition was created by the injured party, Kysor 

Indus. Corp. v. Frazier, 642 P.2d 908 (Colo. 1982); and (b) the 

injured party proceeded to encounter the dangerous condition with 

knowledge of the risks, Shultz v. Linden-Alimak, Inc., 734 P.2d 

146 (Colo. App. 1986). We believe these cases and the facts in 

the record fully support the trial court's granting a directed 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 8 
. ( ' . 

verdict to the defendant. Having so concluded, we find the other 

issues raised in this appeal are moot. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-1067 Document: 010110064869 Date Filed: 10/26/1990 Page: 9