Opinion ID: 443222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prior Litigation--The Imminent Hazard Suit

Text: 10 Advance Machine and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Commercial Mechanisms, Inc., manufactured the automatic baseball pitching machines bought by Athlone and distributed by Dudley. The Consumer Product Safety Commission conducted an inspection of Advance Machine in February of 1977 during the course of which, the Commission obtained information regarding a possible defect in the automatic pitching machine. After receiving injury data from Advance Machine and verifying the presence of a defect through an engineering analysis of the pitching machine, Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 49-54, the Commission, on June 29, 1977, inspected Dudley Sports Company. The Commission informed Athlone that it was investigating the baseball pitching machine and requested information concerning the defect. 11 On July 28, 1977, the Commission filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2061, against Athlone, Advance, Dudley and six other defendants, seeking an injunction and a declaration that the automatic baseball pitching machines they manufactured and distributed in interstate commerce were imminently hazardous consumer products causing numerous severe injuries. The suit also sought repair of all existing machines. The Commission alleged that the pitching machine, even when disconnected from its power source, retained such a high degree of tension in its spring and cable that at the slightest vibration, the pitching arm would unexpectedly swing forward and downward at great speed, striking any person within its range. 12 On May 8, 1978, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia approved a consent judgment which set forth a corrective plan to be undertaken by the defendants. During the consent decree negotiations, the Commission attempted to insert language which would have reserved its right to proceed against the defendants to determine if there has been a failure to comply with reporting obligations under Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product[s] [sic] Safety Act. J.A. at 176. The defendants refused to agree to such a provision, and the final consent judgment contained no such reservation. 13