Opinion ID: 405379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 1 Charles W. Daberko was injured when he fell from the top of a large cylindrical trailer truck while unloading sulphur. The trailer was manufactured in 1974 by the Heil Company and sold to Robertson Tank Lines to be used as a special purpose MC 312 acid trailer. The primary means of loading the trailer was through a round dome lid located at the top rear of the trailer. The dome lid was secured by six lugs which had to be released in order to open the lid. When opened, the dome lid swung upward toward the front of the trailer. Heil installed catwalks along both sides of the trailer about six inches above mid-line. Handrails were provided along the edge of the dome lid guard. The operator was expected to stand on the catwalk and grasp the handrail with one hand while opening the dome lid with the other hand. When standing on the catwalk, the dome lid was approximately at waist level. The trailer was unloaded from the ground through a system of pressurized valves. Heil purposefully designed the trailer so that the operator would not climb on top. 2 Sometime thereafter, Reagent Chemical & Research, Inc., Daberko's employer, purchased the trailer from Robertson Tank Lines. Because Reagent intended to use the trailer to haul sulphur, a number of changes were made in the design. First, Reagent completely dismantled Heil's catwalk system. In its place, Reagent installed a new catwalk located on the top of the trailer and surrounded by a 14 guardrail. Reagent altered the hinge point on the dome lid so that it would open toward the side of the trailer rather than toward the front. Because sulphur, unlike acid, is unloaded from the bottom by gravity, it was necessary for the dome lid and a topside valve to be opened during the unloading process to allow air to enter the tank as the sulphur drained from the bottom. To assist the operator in opening the dome for loading and unloading, Reagent installed a T-bar and attached it to the catwalk by means of a 20 cable. 3 On April 16, 1979, Daberko drove this trailer loaded with sulphur from Port Arthur, Texas, to the Pennwalt Plant in Houston, Texas. He stopped the trailer in the sulphur unloading zone and climbed on top to start the unloading process. Daberko stood on the catwalk and opened the dome lid and the valve. He climbed down and then connected a hose from the trailer to the discharge hole. When the trailer had emptied, Daberko climbed back on top to shut off the valve. A few minutes later, he climbed onto the catwalk on top of the trailer again, this time to secure the dome lid. As he was walking on the catwalk, Daberko caught his foot on the T-bar cable. He tripped and fell over the 14 guardrail and onto the ground. 4 Daberko sustained a back injury in the fall. He underwent extensive surgery and his post-operative recovery was slow and painful. While in the hospital, Daberko developed epilepsy. The back injury aggravated a congenital condition, spondylolisthesis, causing Daberko additional pain. Daberko's back condition has decreased his prospects for many jobs, especially those in the trucking industry. At the time of trial, two years after the accident, Daberko was still unemployed. 5 Daberko sued the Heil Company alleging that the company was strictly liable for its defective design of the trailer. 1 Specifically, Daberko contended that Heil's failure to install a topside catwalk with 42 guardrails rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous and that this defect was a producing cause of his injuries. Heil denied liability on the grounds that the trailer was not unreasonably dangerous and that it had undergone substantial change when Reagent converted it into a sulphur trailer. Heil also raised the affirmative defense of voluntary assumption of the risk. 6 The case was tried before a jury. Heil moved for a directed verdict prior to the submission of the case to the jury, but the motion was denied. The court delivered a thorough charge to the jury in which it explained all the elements of a strict liability claim. The jury was instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that at the time the trailer was designed and left the hands of the defendant it was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user; (2) that the trailer was expected to and did reach the user without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold; and (3) that the defective condition was a producing cause of the accident or injury. The terms producing cause and unreasonably dangerous were defined. Further, the court instructed the jury on the assumption of the risk defense and as well as the items to be considered in assessing Daberko's damages. The jury was instructed to render a general verdict stating only whether it found for plaintiff or defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Daberko and assessed damages in the amount of $333,000.00. 7 Heil then renewed its motion for directed verdict. The court granted Heil's motion 2 and made its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found that the trailer as originally manufactured by Heil was not unreasonably dangerous and that the alterations made by Reagent were so substantial that the trailer lost its identity as a Heil product. Further, the court found that Daberko voluntarily assumed the risk of the fall. Judgment was entered accordingly. 8 In this appeal, Daberko contends that the court erred in refusing to enter judgment on the verdict because there was evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable minds could have arrived at different conclusions as to whether the Heil trailer was unreasonably dangerous, whether it was substantially changed, and whether Daberko assumed the risk of the accident. Heil argues in support of the judgment and raises two cross-points in the alternative. In their briefs and at oral argument, both parties' discussions centered around the issue of substantial change. Because we affirm the district court's conclusion that the Heil trailer was not defectively designed, we need not reach the issues of substantial change and assumption of the risk or Heil's cross-points.II. THE APPLICABLE LAW 9 In 1967, by court decision, Texas adopted § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the law governing strict liability of suppliers of defective products. McKisson v. Sales Affiliates, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.1967). Section 402A provides: 10 (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if 11 (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and 12 (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. 13 (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although 14 (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and 15 (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relationship with the seller. 16 To succeed on a § 402A theory, Daberko first had to prove that the trailer as originally manufactured by Heil was defective because it did not have a catwalk with a 42 guardrail on top and that this defect rendered the trailer unreasonably dangerous to users. In the context of design choices, defect and unreasonably dangerous are synonymous. Mitchell v. Fruehauf Corp., 568 F.2d 1139, 1142 n.1 (5th Cir. 1978). 17 Unreasonably dangerous has been defined by the Texas courts to mean dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases (the product), with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics. Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex.1979); Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 571 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex.1978); Rourke v. Garza, 530 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Tex.1975). See also Comment (i) to § 402A. A determination of unreasonable dangerousness necessarily entails a balancing of the utility of the product against the risk of harm. Mitchell, 568 F.2d at 1144 n.7; Borel v. Fiberboard Paper Products Corp., 493 F.2d 1076, 1089 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 869, 95 S.Ct. 127, 42 L.Ed.2d 107 (1974); Turner, 584 S.W.2d at 851. This includes a consideration of whether additional safety features would raise the cost or diminish the utility of the product. Helicoid Gage Division of American Chain & Cable Co. v. Howell, 511 S.W.2d 573, 577 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A manufacturer need not destroy the utility of its product to make the product safe. Hagans v. Oliver Machinery Co., 576 F.2d 97, 101 (5th Cir. 1978). And the fact that the manufacturer might have designed a better, safer product does not necessarily mean that the product he did design was unreasonably dangerous. Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 519 S.W.2d 87, 93 (Tex.1974). 18 A manufacturer must design a product which is not unreasonably dangerous for its intended and foreseeable uses. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt, 385 F.2d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 913, 88 S.Ct. 1806, 20 L.Ed.2d 652 (1968); General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344, 349 (Tex.1977). Thus, the manufacturer of a knife is not liable when his product cuts someone who uses the knife as a toothpick. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d at 349. The foreseeability of a particular deviation in the manufacturer's intended use of the product bears upon the issue of whether the product was unreasonably dangerous when manufactured and sold. Id. See also Comment (h) to § 402A (a product is not in a defective condition when it is safe for normal handling). 19