Opinion ID: 753903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misuse Instruction

Text: 12 We conclude that Marine did not waive his objection to the misuse instruction by requesting such an instruction both before and during the trial. While appellant objected to the misuse instruction without stating as his reason defendant's failure to submit sufficient evidence for the instruction, appellant's objection followed the court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict on the same issue. Thus, appellant had already raised this specific objection with the court. Moreover, acting with the knowledge that the court intended to give an instruction on misuse, appellant's submission of alternative instructions does not detract from his original objection. See Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, 820 F.2d 1491, 1493 (9th Cir.1987) (party did not waive objection to instruction when submitted alternative instruction and indicated to court throughout the trial his disagreement about the appropriate law).
13 A defendant will not be liable under the misuse prong of § 12-683(3) if the 14 proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was ... contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings appearing on or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the injured person knew or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings. 15 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-683(3). Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by giving an instruction on this aspect of the misuse defense because the defendant did not present evidence to support this theory. Specifically, appellant argues that the defendant did not present evidence that the warnings were express and adequate because it did not define two phrases, while operating the truck and within the running lines, and because the training materials depict operators with their hands outside the running lines of the truck. 16 Crown presented sufficient evidence that multiple explicit warnings were provided on the truck and in the attached training material which instructed the defendant while operating this truck, protect yourself by keeping your head, arms, hands and legs within the running lines of the truck. 17 The determination of whether a warning is adequate to apprise users of dangers in the product is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact. Piper v. Bear Med. Sys., Inc., 180 Ariz. 170, 883 P.2d 407, 414 (Ariz.Ct.App.1993). Whether the lack of definition of two terms made the warnings inadequate was properly left to the jury. 18 b. Unforeseeable Misuse 19 Pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-683(3), a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that: 20 The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable .... 21 Id. Misuse has been variously referred to as use for a purpose or in a manner that, from the manufacturer or seller's view, was unintended, unforeseeable, unanticipated, unexpected, non-customary, or abnormal. Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 183 Ariz. 399, 904 P.2d 861, 865 (Ariz.1995). Misuse, however, is not the same as contributory negligence, which involves careless use for a proper purpose. Id. 22 Crown suggests that the following evidence supports a theory of misuse. Dr. Black testified that there were three reasons why Marine's conduct was unforeseeable. First, as a trained operator, it defied common sense for plaintiff to place his left hand outside the running lines of the truck. Second, the compartment was designed to nestle the operator against the backrest making it inconceivable that Marine would move his hand to prevent himself from falling out of the compartment. Third, Marine's conduct violated explicit warnings. 23 Crown also points to testimony that for the lift truck to move the distance that it did, the operator would have to do more than inadvertently bump the multifunction control. Similarly, Crown points to testimony that the inadvertent bumping most likely did not occur from Marine's body rotation when yelling to the co-worker. Thus, Crown suggests that there are reasons why the jury could have rejected Marine's claim of inadvertent bumping, and instead found that the accident resulted from misuse. 24 As the district court noted before agreeing to give the instruction, Crown's evidence demonstrates, at most, that Marine was careless while using the lift truck for the intended purpose and in the intended manner. The facts presented indicate only that Marine stopped the truck in preparation for transporting merchandise from a shelf to another area, the intended purpose and manner of use of the lift truck. In the process, he removed his hands from the controls, putting his left hand outside the running lines, turning over his left shoulder to yell to a co-worker and then, inadvertently hit the multifunction control, sending the lift truck into steel shelving. This does not support a theory of misuse. Compare Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 177 Ariz. 342, 868 P.2d 355, 359 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994) (stretching bungee cord beyond limits of elasticity was misuse) with Boy v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp., 150 Ariz. 526, 724 P.2d 612, 620 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986) (evidence that fitting would not break when force four times amount necessary to make fitting leak tight supported theory that accident occurred only by misuse). Because the evidence failed to justify an instruction on misuse, the district court abused its discretion. 25 The court must reverse the district court unless it determines that the error of giving the instruction was more probable than not harmless. Jenkins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 22 F.3d 206, 210 (9th Cir.1994). The record reflects that the jury entered a general verdict for the defendant and that Crown did not present overwhelming evidence on the other defenses. Thus, defendant has not established harmless error. REVERSE