Opinion ID: 399006
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Which Dealt With State of the Art

Text: 22 There was very little testimony on this issue. It was mentioned briefly on three occasions and the issue was raised on two of these occasions by counsel for the plaintiff who is now complaining about its presence. 23 The first mention of it was when the plaintiff was examining Mr. George Greene, Jr., an expert witness called by the plaintiff. Counsel asked Mr. Greene whether the machine had any continuous arm and ready button on it, and the answer was that it did not. Then he was asked whether the technology that was used to put the continuous arm and ready button on the current Minster machines was available in the industry and available to Minster back in the early 1950's, when the machine in question was made. The answer was that it merely required the installation of another switch. The question was then asked about a key lock system and whether the technology required for that system was available back in the 1950's when Minster made the machine in question. The answer was that such technology was available at that time but that this machine did not have such a key lock system. Counsel for Minster cross examined Mr. Greene and established that, in fact, a key lock system was typical in the industry and he then suggested that the key lock was left off the press number 4703 simply because Western Electric so demanded. 24 A further introduction of evidence by the plaintiff having to do with the subject of state of the art occurred in the cross examination of Robert Jordan by counsel for plaintiff. The question was asked whether other features could have been added at the time that the machine was manufactured, such as an arm and ready button. The answer was that it could have been. 25 The next question was whether or not, in 1950, Minster had the technological ability to install such a system on its machines as the continuous arm and ready button. The answer was that the question was a philosophical one. The witness said that he supposed that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1925 had we chosen to pursue it, but we didn't. The next question was All right. The whole point was that Minster chose not to put an arm and ready button on this machine, didn't they? The answer was that Chose is a difficult word at that point. There wasn't any choosing. Such a system was unknown in the industry at that time. And, I think that's a fair question-it wasn't a matter of choosing or not choosing. Counsel then asked Well, if you had the technological ability to do it and you wanted to protect the worker    you put a continuous arm and ready button on it   , isn't that right?    That could have been put on and could be put on any press. 26 As the result of further questioning of the witness Jordan, by counsel for the defendant, he said that the arm and ready button did not exist and was not a part of the state of the art of the industry in 1955. Further testimony from the defendant was to the effect that the arm and ready buttons came into use only recently and that a recognized alternative to the use of that system was the use of the hand buttons which required continuous pressure to keep the machine stroking continuously. The machine in question had such hand controls. 27 One further question from counsel for the defendant directed to an expert witness, Mr. Holland, who had been called by the defendant, referred to the state of the art issue. Holland was asked whether or not he had an opinion as to the control circuitry as it existed in 1955 and shipped by Minster Machine as to whether it met, fell below, or exceeded the state of the art for the industry at that time. Mr. Holland said that he did have an opinion on it and when asked what it was he said that his opinion was that it exceeded customary controls built in 1955. 28 Notwithstanding that both parties had referred to the question of state of the art at the time of the manufacture of the machine in question, it was not mentioned at all by defense counsel in closing arguments. It was mentioned very briefly by counsel for plaintiff. 29