Source: https://slidelegend.com/united-states-court-of-appeals-tenth-circuit-ingrid-_59c4e0ec1723dd5242be290d.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:07:17+00:00

Document:
Apr 7, 2010 - R. App. 32.1. It is appropriate .... Nonetheless, common sense dictates a mechanic would consult the service manual (and JLG) prior to ... mechanic/technician employed by United Rentals, attempted to repair the malfunction.
v. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant - Appellee. UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST, INC, an Oregon corporation, Defendant.
This order and judgment is an unpublished decision, not binding precedent. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to unpublished decisions is not prohibited. Fed. R. App. 32.1. It is appropriate as it relates to law of the case, issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Unpublished decisions may also be cited for their persuasive value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to an order and judgment must be accompanied by an appropriate parenthetical notation B (unpublished). Id.
Before O'BRIEN, SEYMOUR, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Camerino Ramirez and Anthony Magoffe were working on the platform of a scissor lift raised to the height of approximately 46 feet. James Magoffe was supervising the work from the ground. Unexpectedly, one of the leveling jacks at the base of the lift retracted causing the lift to tip over. Ramirez and Anthony Magoffe were killed. James Magoffe was injured. The workers1 sued the manufacturer of the scissor lift, JLG Industries (JLG), and the company from whom their employer, Yearout Mechanical, rented the lift, United Rentals Northwest (United Rentals).2 Relevant here, the complaint alleged JLG failed to provide sufficient safety warnings. In fact, United Rentals made unauthorized alterations to the lift, bypassing safety mechanisms. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JLG, concluding United Rentals’ alterations to the lift were unforeseeable as a matter of law, defeating both strict liability and negligence claims. We affirm. II. A.
The ground control station is not relevant to this appeal.
unless the leveling jacks are extended, the jacks are bearing weight, and the unit is level (and, of course, the lift cannot then be moved horizontally). Once deployed the jacks cannot be moved until the work platform is returned to the stowed position. The leveling jacks can only be moved by an operator in the work platform.8 B.
specifically passed that critical information along to its mechanics.10 Nonetheless, common sense dictates a mechanic would consult the service manual (and JLG) prior to modifying critical electrical circuitry, particularly in light of the numerous explicit “no alteration” warnings contained in both the operator and service manuals. C.
problem, particularly those requiring the operator to “CHECK ALL FUNCTIONS . . . TO BE SURE THERE ARE NO MALFUNCTIONS” and the operator’s manual telling users to perform “[a] functional check of all systems” and warning, “TO AVOID INJURY DO NOT OPERATE A MACHINE UNTIL ALL MALFUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED . . .” (Id. at 236, 75 (emphasis added).) Because Ramos mistakenly believed “everything [was] functioning the way it should be . . . above [a] height of 22 feet,” the lift was placed back into service.12 (Id. at 154.) More than a year later, on February 20, 2006, Ramos performed an inspection of the lift. His inspection reported the lift was working properly and had not been modified without authorization. 13 United Rentals rented the lift to Yearout Mechanical on March 1, 2006. See United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 573 F.3d 997, 999 (10th Cir. 2009). On April 1, 2006, Camerino Ramirez and Anthony and James Magoffe were using the lift to install ductwork in an airport hangar approximately fifty feet above the ground. While lowering the work platform, but still approximately 46 feet above the ground, the right rear stabilizing jack retracted and the lift tipped over, injuring James and killing Anthony and Camerino. III.
defect or unreasonable risk of injury in the product itself or in the existing warnings and directions that accompany it at the time of sale. (Id. at 386 (quotations and citations omitted).) It also denied Appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment, concluding the motion did “not provide an appropriate vehicle for partial adjudication of the duty and breach elements of [Appellants’] failure-to-warn claims.” (Id. at 437.) Appellants appeal from both decisions. As a collateral matter, they also request we certify questions of New Mexico law to the New Mexico Supreme Court. We deny the certification request15 and affirm. IV.
Cir. 2004). We also review de novo the district court’s interpretation of substantive state law. Enfield ex rel. Enfield v. A.B. Chance Co., 228 F.3d 1245, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).16 “While the movant bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the movant need not negate the nonmovant’s claim.” Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 990 (10th Cir. 1996). Once the movant carries this burden, the nonmoving party must “bring forward specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof.” Id. An issue of material fact is genuine if a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmovant. Id. While our summary judgment standard requires us to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it does not require us to disregard undisputed evidence favoring the moving party. Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 478 F.3d 1160, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007). A.
after a substantial modification of the product if the modification was reasonably foreseeable.” Chairez v. James Hamilton Constr. Co., 215 P.3d 732, 737 (N.M. Ct. App.
Similarly, a claim of negligence under New Mexico law also “encompasses the concepts of foreseeability of harm to the person injured and of a duty of care toward that person.” Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 73 P.3d 181, 186 (N.M. 2003) (quotations omitted). A “supplier must use ordinary care to warn of a risk of injury. However, there is no duty to warn of a risk unknown to the supplier, unless . . . the supplier should have known of the risk.” N.M. Civ. UJI 13-1415. “Where an injury is caused by a risk or a misuse of the product which was not reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer and supplier, they are not liable.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Bryco Arms, 33 P.3d 638, 645 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). B.
improvident undertakings would even be attempted. Thus, JLG could not reasonably foresee why additional warnings were needed. Appellants stressed at oral argument “all kinds of things” could have stopped the DSCOS from operating properly, including “debris . . . [or] low temperatures.” (Oral Argument Recording at 30:44-30:50.) Such possibilities, they assert, created an unreasonable risk of injury for which an adequate warning should have been given. While it may be plausible that ice or debris would interfere with the DSCOS, those are not the facts presented in this case. The foreseeability of other possible causes must wait. See Kunkel v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 866 F.2d 1269, 1274 (10th Cir. 1989) (“‘Advance expressions of legal judgment upon issues which remain unfocused’ are impermissible.”) (quoting United States v. Fruehauf, 365 U.S. 146, 157 (1961)). Under the facts presented here, it was unforeseeable that unreported modifications would bypass the interlock to the leveling jacks and remove that integrated safety mechanism which otherwise alerted users (by cutting out the high-speed functions and their attending noise) the lift was unsafe to operate. The modifications caused the lift to function in a way unintended and unexpected by JLG. The malfunction of the leveling jack cut out switch was unforeseeable as a matter of law and, therefore, JLG had no reason to require or recommend more comprehensive operational tests to disclose such a possibility. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of JLG on all claims. C.
May 21, 2010 - AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, f/k/a Cingular ... numbers that had been called from the phone or the cell tower .... Corp., 671 P.2d 682, 687 (Okla. Civ.
Mar 23, 2010 - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .... Although that case has not been adopted wholesale by the Idaho courts, it was cited in. Just's, Inc. v.
Feb 1, 2010 - JOHN GRISHAM; DOUBLEDAY DELL. PUBLISHING ..... But we note that, at a minimum, allowing the plaintiffs to recover would offend the spirit.
May 21, 2010 - AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, f/k/a Cingular. Wireless ... App. P. 43(a) motion to substitute Corey Frey. ... Cingular Wireless is now AT&T Mobility, LLC.
Mar 11, 2016 - court sentenced him to forty-nine months in prison and three years' supervised release. ..... App.) (rejecting, post-Jardines, a bright-line rule that.
Mar 4, 2010 - Saddle Ridge, a Wyoming real estate development company, owns a tract of land in Laramie County, Wyoming, bordered to the west by.
Dec 21, 2010 - Development for Northville Township,. JOSEPH ... dispute over the application of several local zoning ordinances to a residence that the ..... she had determined that Miles Christi's use of the property had become more.
Feb 25, 2010 - him at the meeting: Brian Mattingly, Big Rivers' sales and marketing manager, and Jerry. Mattingly (no ... Helena and the trio of Tincher and the Mattinglys remained in phone and email ... Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 485 (Ky.
Sep 12, 2005 - RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. Pursuant to ... dimensional guitar shape set out in the trademark-registration papers. ..... they buy this. .... caused by the use of PACCAR's trademarks in its domain names.
Apr 15, 2010 - FREE EXPRESSION, ASSOCIATION OF. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS ... which criminalizes sending juveniles material that is harmful to them, is.
Nov 18, 2011 - Tabone had casino security officers bring him to the security office. ... He was placed in a secure interview room inside the station, handcuffs.
Jan 12, 2010 - before Liu's temporary visa expired, BPS decided to move its research group from ... green card, and he wanted to discuss with the law firm the option of starting the .... allowing Liu to pay for the associated costs in doing so.
Feb 25, 2010 - made Tincher head of business development. ... put together a budget for a potential Helena branch in western Kentucky. ... Ct. App. 1988).
Oct 14, 2010 - denial of class certification did not pose a likelihood of harm to DCS ..... application of two materially different ripeness standards, but to .... second bite at the apple under circumstances that do not implicate a miscarriage of.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.