Opinion ID: 1983259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: strict liability: negligence

Text: This accident occurred because one of Mr. Wenrick's fellow workers accidentally tripped an unguarded limit switch which in turn caused the billet loader of the press to activate. Mr. Wenrick was standing in the path of the billet loader, assisting in making repairs to the press. The press had not been deactivated prior to repair, as it should have been, and Mr. Wenrick was crushed to death. Of central importance to the legal analysis in this case is the definition of the product and the defect in the product which gave rise to both plaintiff's strict liability and negligence theories. Once the product and the defect therein are defined, it becomes clear that SMS, not Eaton, was responsible for the defect and, thus, for Mr. Wenrick's death. The defective product in this case is the press as a whole and the defect in that product is an unguarded limit switch positioned by a staircase where the switch could easily be inadvertently tripped as it tragically was. In fact, both parties' briefs describe the defect in precisely this dual manner  an unguarded switch abutting a staircase. Brief for Appellant at p. 26; Brief for Appellee at p. 48. Further, it was this dual defect that caused this accident. As Wenrick states in her brief, [i]t was the conjunction of the unguarded limit switch in an unguarded condition and its being mounted on the press next to an entrance-way where it was likely to be tripped that combined to cause Mr. Wenrick's death. Brief for Appellee at p. 48. The record is relatively clear as to the roles Eaton and SMS variously played in the manufacture of the press. Eaton apparently designed and definitely manufactured the electrical system to power the press but its design and manufacture did not include the limit switch or its positioning. It based its design on sequence of operation diagrams and similar specifications SMS provided to Eaton. Eaton did not install the electrical system, but sub-contracted the actual wiring operation. Eaton did visit the location of the press after installation to debug and adjust the electrical system at various times during its initial six months of operation. (R. 860a). Eaton's electrical system design did not include a direction as to the exact location of the limit switch nor, obviously, did it include any direction as to the placement of the staircase which formed a part of the press itself. Eaton did not manufacture or supply any of the limit switches to be used on the press. On the other hand, SMS designed, manufactured and installed the press. SMS obtained the unguarded limit switch from a third party and installed it. SMS, not Eaton, designed and built the portion of the press where the switch was, and determined exactly where the switch would be, designed the pit beneath the press and located the steps leading to the pit directly adjacent to the switch. (R. 661a-64a). We note that in reviewing the record to ascertain these facts, we have remained fully conscious that, as this court has recently stated, . . . on appeal from the refusal of the lower court to enter judgment n.o.v., the sole duty of the appellate court is to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, granting the verdict winner every favorable inference reasonably to be drawn from the evidence and rejecting all unfavorable testimony and influences [sic]. Walasavage v. Marinelli, 334 Pa.Super. 396, 407, 483 A.2d 509, 514-15 (1984). As to many of the facts recited above, there was no real dispute between the parties. For example, there is no evidence of record indicating that Eaton played any role in manufacturing, supplying, selling or installing the switch on the press. Wenrick's own expert not only testified to all these facts, but also testified that SMS, not Eaton, located the switch on the press. (R. 661a-65a). In fact, Wenrick's own Brief fails to cite to any place in the record where any definite evidence was adduced to show that Eaton was responsible for the choice of the switch, the installation thereof without a guard or the positioning of either the switch or the staircase. Wenrick's Brief states that because Eaton participated in the design, it necessarily had to have participated in the positioning and obligation to guard that switch. Brief for Appellee at p. 48. Wenrick provides no record reference to support this necessary conclusion. The only true support Wenrick provides for its contention that Eaton positioned the switch is the assertion that Eaton provided the drawings that indicated where the wires had to be placed to wire the limit switches. To support this assertion, Wenrick refers to a portion of the testimony of Eaton's project engineer assigned to this project. However, Wenrick's reference to that testimony is misleadingly selective, since the engineer specifically testified that although Eaton did the drawings showing wire placement, those drawings did not indicate where any of the limit switches themselves were to be located. (R. 866a). The same witness also expressly testified that SMS determined where the limit switches were to be located on the press. (R. 860a). And as previously indicated, Wenrick's own expert testified that SMS, not Eaton, positioned the switch by the staircase. Having thus clarified what the evidence reveals as to the respective roles of Eaton and SMS in the manufacture of the true product involved here, i.e. the press, the responsibility for the defect in that product becomes clear. Eaton is the designer and manufacturer of a component part of the product. The component for which Eaton is responsible is the electrical system. Our Supreme Court has held that a component part manufacturer can indeed be held strictly liable when the part it manufactured is defective and causes injury, so long as the component part was not substantially changed after it left the hands of the manufacturer. Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co., Inc., 433 Pa. 319, 325, 249 A.2d 563, 566 (1969). See also Orion Insurance Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 502 F.Supp. 173, 178 (E.D.Pa. 1980). Liability does not automatically shift to the party who assembles the part into the final product unless in so doing that party substantially changes the part and thereby renders it defective. Id. Our Supreme Court has also recognized that the lack of proper safety devices can constitute a defective design for which recovery under 402a can be had. Bartkewich v. Billinger, 432 Pa. 351, 354, 247 A.2d 603, 605 (1968). In this case, there was no evidence that the component part that Eaton designed and manufactured, i.e. the electrical wiring system, was defective when it left Eaton's hands. There is no contention that the system malfunctioned. There is only the contention that the aspect of the design and assembly of the press which placed an unguarded switch next to a staircase was defective. Eaton itself did not participate in that design or assembly. Although it is the function of the jury to determine if a defect in a product exists, they may only find a defect where the product left the supplier's control lacking any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use. Azzarello v. Black Brothers, 480 Pa. 547, 559, 391 A.2d 1020, 1027 (1978). The electrical system itself did not leave Eaton's control in a defective condition in either of the aforementioned ways. In fact, it was not even rendered defective when incorporated into the press, since the unguarded switch and the staircase were never part of Eaton's system. They were parts of the press as a whole, for which SMS is responsible. Eaton's lack of responsibility in this case can perhaps best be illustrated by a comparison to another case in which Eaton's corporate predecessor, Cutler-Hammer, Inc. (CH), was properly held liable for the defective design of an electrical control system it provided to Vernon Allsteel (VA) for installation in a press VA manufactured. Burnett v. Mackworth G. Rees, Inc., 109 Mich.App. 547, 311 N.W.2d 417 (1981). In that case, a woman's hand was crushed when a control button fell off the press when she was operating it. The button itself had been manufactured by Mackworth G. Rees, Inc. (Rees) and purchased by CH who directed where it was to be placed on the press. VA installed the control button. The court upheld a jury verdict against CH and VA and absolved Rees of liability, stating that Rees had merely supplied a non-defective off-the-shelf button. In contrast, CH had designed the circuitry to be used in the control button and it was that circuitry that proved to be defective. Id. at 549-559, 311 N.W.2d at 418-22. The contrast between Burnett and this case is clear. In Burnett, CH's (Eaton's) electrical control system had a defective circuitry design and CH had ordered and provided to VA the control button. Here, Eaton's system had no such defect and Eaton did not provide or locate the switch. The remaining question is whether Eaton is liable in negligence. Eaton's liability in negligence can either be premised on its alleged negligent production of a defectively designed product or on its failure to warn SMS of the danger presented by the limit switch as it was positioned after the press was operational. Given the foregoing analysis of the strict liability aspect of this case, Eaton is just as clearly not liable for the negligent production of a defective product. Since Eaton's product was not defectively designed, it is not liable under either Section 402A or negligence principles. However, it is clear from a reading of the pleadings and record that Wenrick's true focus in its negligence claim is the failure of Eaton to warn SMS, after the press was in operation, of the defect in the press resulting from the positioning and unguarded condition of the switch. [1] Admittedly, Wenrick did not clarify this aspect of its negligence theory until after the close of evidence during a conference with the trial judge concerning the charge to the jury. Nevertheless, at that time an exchange between counsel and the trial judge took place in which counsel for Wenrick indicated that the legal basis for this allegation of negligence was Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. (R. 903a-12a). Section 324a states: One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts 324A (1965). Counsel for Wenrick also cited to Blessing v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 1160 (E.D.Pa. 1978) in support of this allegation of negligence. Blessing concerned a negligence claim by an injured press operator against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Plaintiff alleged that because OSHA had conducted inspections at his employer's plant, and allegedly had negligently failed to detect the defect in the press that caused plaintiff's injury, OSHA was liable to plaintiff. This theory was put forth, at least in part, under Section 324A. Wenrick apparently attempted to fit within the same theory of negligent inspections in this case. When counsel presented this theory to the trial judge, the judge expressed his doubts as to whether there was any indication in the evidence that Eaton ever undertook to or did inspect the limit switch. Nevertheless, the trial judge stated that Section 324A did appear to set forth the only legal basis for Wenrick's claim of negligence after the press was operational. Eaton's counsel duly excepted. (R. 907a-12a). The trial judge concluded that he intended to charge negligence in their failure to warn Schloemann [SMS], whether it resulted from the inspection or from their alleged duty as a designer. (R. 911a). In fact, the court's rather brief charge to the jury did not make any reference to the specific requirements of Section 324A. The charge was merely a general statement of the law of negligence, although as to Eaton's negligence the charge did focus entirely on Eaton's failure to warn SMS, not Wenrick or his employer, of the danger presented by the switch. The only possible legal support for the imposition of liability on Eaton to Wenrick as a result of Eaton's breach of its alleged duty to warn SMS after the press was operational is Section 324A, which addresses precisely such a three-party situation. However, as the trial judge made clear at the time Wenrick's counsel first advanced the Section 324A argument, the record is completely devoid of evidence to show that Eaton ever undertook to inspect the limit switch or any other part of the press, or that Eaton did in fact inspect the switch itself, or that SMS or Wenrick was relying on Eaton to so inspect or that Eaton's failure to inspect it in any way increased the risk of harm to anyone resulting from the switch. In fact, the record contains only testimony to the contrary. For example, although Eaton's project engineer did testify that he was at the press' location after assembly to debug and adjust the electrical system and saw the unguarded limit switch at that time [2] (R. 860a-62a, 882a-83a), he also testified that it was not Eaton's responsibility to warn SMS of any danger presented by the switch. (R. 883a-84a). Moreover, the engineer testified that SMS had never consulted Eaton as to the press itself or the position of the switches. (R. 863a). The only testimony to the contrary is that of Wenrick's expert, who stated that is his opinion Eaton had a duty to warn SMS (R. 624a). From what this supposed duty arose is not indicated. This evidence cannot conceivably be construed as supporting Eaton's liability under Section 324A. Wenrick did not even meet the minimal requirements of alleging and proving an undertaking by Eaton, a failure to fulfill that undertaking or any causal connection between that alleged failure and Wenrick's death. See Evans v. Liberty Mutual Insur. Co., 398 F.2d 665 (3d Cir. 1968); Isaacson v. Mobil Propane Corp., 315 Pa.Super. 42, 461 A.2d 625 (1983). In consequence, the Section 324A claim obviously must fail. The Order of May 20, 1985 is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of judgment N.O.V. in favor of Eaton. [3]