Opinion ID: 2186413
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of a Defect

Text: When this court reviews the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, we shall reverse the trial justice's decision only if [an] examination of the evidence and all inferences reasonably flowing therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and without consideration of the weight of the evidence or witness credibility, reveals no evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ. Vucci v. Meyers Brothers Parking System, Inc., 494 A.2d 530, 534 (R.I. 1985). The defendant asserts that the proof of the existence of a defect was a common element of plaintiff's negligence, warranty, and products liability claims and that since plaintiff failed to establish the defect, the whole chain of claims fails. We disagree. Although our review of the record indicates that the evidence regarding a defect conflicts greatly, we find that sufficient evidence exists to raise a question that the ladder was defective and that the defect proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. In Thomas v. Amway Corp., 488 A.2d 716, 722 (R.I. 1985), we held that the mere use of an allegedly defective product did not establish a causal nexus between a product and the plaintiff's injuries. Here, unlike the factual context in Thomas, plaintiff submitted evidence that when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, could support a finding that the ladder in question was weakened because of the presence of spring or low-density wood. Hence, the determination of the existence of such a defect remains within the province of the jury. In Handrigan v. Apex Warwick, Inc., 108 R.I. 319, 275 A.2d 262 (1971), the plaintiff was injured as a result of a fall from an aluminum extension ladder. The plaintiff brought suit against Apex for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability and introduced expert testimony that the ladder was too weak to support the weight of a man weighing 175 pounds or more, and that the ladder was unsafe. Id. at 322, 275 A.2d at 264. The testimony of the plaintiff's expert supported his allegations even though the ladder met the specifications of the applicable code. The defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence that the ladder was unfit for the use for which it was intended. The trial court denied the motion and this court affirmed, stating: The fact that the ladder met all the specifications of the American Standard Safety Code does not establish as a matter of law that the ladder was fit for the ordinary purposes for which ladders are used. The expert's testimony that the ladder was too weak and unsafe raised a question of fact, and we hold that the trial justice correctly submitted the case to the jury so that they could determine, on all the evidence, the question of fitness under the Uniform Commercial Code. 108 R.I. at 323, 275 A.2d at 265. We agree with plaintiff that Dr. Lement's testimony raised a question of fact, as did the expert's opinion in Handrigan. Accordingly, to the extent that each claim required the threshold determination by the trial justice of the existence of evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a defect, we hold that he correctly submitted the case to the jury on the negligence, strict liability, and warranty claims. The credibility of the expert witnesses in this case, where expert testimony conflicted greatly, also remains a question of fact that must be resolved by the jury. Vucci, 494 A.2d at 534.