Opinion ID: 2590307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Punitive Damages Claim

Text: Punitive damages are not favored. They are awarded only to punish the defendant and deter others from such conduct in the future, rather than to compensate the plaintiff, and will be awarded only for conduct involving some element of outrage such as malice or willful and wanton misconduct. Alexander v. Meduna, 2002 WY 83, ¶¶ 40-41, 47 P.3d 206, 218 (Wyo.2002). Plaintiff has made no showing that punitive damages are reasonably related to the harm that has occurred from Defendant's conduct, that there is a degree of reprehensibility in the Defendant's conduct such as concealment of a hazard, or that the wrongful conduct was profitable to the Defendants. Id. ¶ 42, 47 P.3d at 219. Summary Judgment is granted on the punitive damages claim. In a products liability case, the plaintiff must show that the manufacturer provided a defective product. A defective product is one which is not reasonably safe or is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. Campbell v. Studer, Inc., 970 P.2d 389, 392 (Wyo.1998); McLaughlin v. Michelin Tire Corp., 778 P.2d 59, 64 (Wyo.1989). The corollary of that statement is if a product is safe for normal use, it is not defective. Campbell, 970 P.2d at 392. In many products liability cases, the plaintiff will attempt to show a defect in the product from the fact that it malfunctioned. In this case, Loredo made no showing that the product itself, the roof bolter, malfunctioned. Instead, Loredo maintained that the roof bolter was defective, i.e., unreasonably dangerous, because a safety device, the chassis canopy, was not standard equipment or a recommended option. [¶ 21] The district court decided, in part, that Joy owed Loredo no duty because he was not injured by the roof bolter but by the falling rock. That rationale begs the question of whether Joy had a duty to design the roof bolter with a chassis canopy to protect the user from a known danger associated with using the product (falling rock) or to, at least, recommend that such a safety option be incorporated. Following the district court's analysis to its logical conclusion, there would not be any cases where products were found to be defective unless the product itself was the instrumentality of the injury. This position is not borne out in case law. In Davis v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 719 P.2d 324 (Colo.App.1985), a case that was cited by the district court in its decision letter, the plaintiff was injured when a tree fell on him while he was operating a tractor. He claimed that the tractor was defective because the manufacturer did not attach a rollover protective device or a falling object protective device. Although the plaintiff in that case was not successful in establishing a defect, the decision did not state that he could not maintain his claim because he was injured by the falling tree rather than the tractor itself. Other cases in which the plaintiffs were injured by outside hazards and claimed that the products were defective because they were not equipped with certain safety devices include Beron v. Kramer-Trenton Co., 402 F.Supp. 1268 (E.D.Pa.1975) (alleging defective forklift design for failing to protect against falling objects) and Braxton v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 419 So.2d 125 (La.Ct.App.1982) (alleging defective crane design for failing to protect against contact with electrical lines). [¶ 22] Nevertheless, we agree with the remainder of the district court's legal analysis and conclude that Joy Technologies did not owe a duty to Loredo to equip the roof bolter with a chassis canopy. The question of whether a product is defective because a safety device was not standard equipment or a recommended option was discussed at length in Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Annotation, Products Liability: Manufacturer's or Seller's Obligation to Supply or Recommend Available Safety Accessories in Connection with Industrial Machinery or Equipment, 99 A.L.R.3d 693 (1980 and 2009 Supp.). Courts typically conduct a balancing test using various factors to determine whether the product's manufacturer or seller has a duty to recommend or supply available safety accessories. Id. at § 2[a]. It is important to keep in mind that these factors all lead to an ultimate determination of whether the product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. [¶ 23] One factor that courts consider is the dangerousness of the product without the safety accessory. Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Annotation, supra, 99 A.L.R.3d 693, § 2[a]. Consideration of this factor often includes weighing of matters such as: the obviousness/unreasonableness of the danger, relevant safety standards, the presence of a warning, and the effectiveness of the safety device to prevent the risks of injury. Id. Another important factor is the relative positions of the manufacturer and buyer. This factor includes such matters as industry custom, the buyer's awareness of the availability of safety accessories or of the danger of using the product without them, whether the manufacturer offered the safeguards and the buyer refused them, the feasibility of installing the safeguards, and/or the buyer's reliance on the manufacturer's expertise. Id. [¶ 24] Applying these considerations to the case at bar, the undisputed facts establish that Joy Technologies did not owe Loredo a duty to equip the roof bolter with a canopy. The danger of falling rocks in the unsupported area was open and obvious. Solvay's company policies and MSHA regulations prohibited use of the roof bolter in an unsupported area. In fact, Solvay was cited by MSHA after Loredo's accident because he violated mine regulations by operating the roof bolter in an unsupported area. Mine safety regulations did not require canopies under the circumstances of this case, and it was not industry practice to have canopies on the roof bolters. Evidence was presented showing that the roof bolters used in other trona mines in Sweetwater County were not equipped with chassis canopies. [¶ 25] The purchaser (Tennaco) was informed and knowledgeable about machinery. Prior to purchasing the roof bolter, Tennaco issued a detailed request for bids from various manufacturers, including Joy Technologies. Tennaco's request for bids asked the manufacturers to provide technical information about the products so that Tennaco's engineering staff could make an informed decision about which product to purchase. Although the request for bids did not seek specific safety recommendations, it did ask for a list of available options. Joy Technologies' proposal included the chassis canopy as an option. Tennaco made a conscious decision not to purchase the canopy because the roof bolter was not intended to be used in unsupported roof areas and did not elect to add the canopy when it took over the mine because it had a similar policy prohibiting use of the bolter in unsupported areas. [¶ 26] When presented with products liability cases where a safety option was offered to a buyer but was refused, courts have routinely held that the manufacturer or seller had no duty of the kind. Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Annotation, supra, 99 A.L.R.3d 693, § 2[a]. See also, Biss v. Tenneco, Inc., 409 N.Y.S.2d 874, 876, 64 A.D.2d 204, 207 (N.Y.App.Div.1978); Davis v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 719 P.2d 324, 325 (Colo.App. 1985) (holding manufacturers were not liable when purchasers elected not to purchase optional safety devices). This is especially true when, as here, the buyer was sophisticated and knowledgeable about the product and the uses of the product. [¶ 27] In arguing that Joy had a duty to supply or recommend the chassis canopy, Loredo focuses upon data pertaining to mining accidents. Much of that evidence is not relevant to the circumstances presented here. Instead, it pertains to accidents in coal mines (where canopies are apparently required by MHSA regulations) and accidents occurring when the operator is working from the boom of the roof bolter. Although the evidence could be interpreted as suggesting that canopies used in those situations may prevent injuries, it does not support a conclusion that Joy was required to supply a canopy to protect Loredo from falling rocks in a non-coal (trona) mine while working from the chassis rather than the boom. [¶ 28] The undisputed facts establish that Joy provided the roof bolter with the requested features to Tennaco, a knowledgeable buyer; the roof bolter, as ordered by Tennaco, did not have any defects and met with mine safety regulations; and Loredo was injured while using the bolter in a manner that was not anticipated or appropriate under applicable policies and regulations. Under these circumstances, Loredo has failed to establish that Joy owed a duty to provide a product that protected him from falling rock. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Joy on all of Loredo's claims.