Opinion ID: 1305776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Alteration

Text: The first section of South Carolina's Defective Product Act formulates manufacturers' and sellers' liability as follows: § 15-73-10 Liability of seller for defective product. (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 caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-73-10 (1976). This section imposes strict liability upon the manufacturer and seller for an injury to any user caused by its product, if the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change. Id. [4] Thus, if it can be shown that the product was (1) materially altered before it reached the injured user and (2) such alteration could not have been expected by the manufacturer or seller, then the manufacturer or seller is not liable. See generally Kennedy v. Custom Ice Equipment Co., Inc., 271 S.C. 171, 246 S.E.2d 176 (1978). In the no fault strict liability setting of the modern products case, the defense of material alteration becomes very important. When an alteration to the product is shown, it is sometimes forgotten that the foreseeability of the alteration must also be examined. Turning now to the pertinent facts, as part of her job, Fleming was required to clean the top of a machine manufactured by Woodman. Woodman also manufactured a platform to be used when cleaning the machine and installed the machine in the Borden plant. Sometime after installation of the machine, the Woodman platform was removed and ladders were substituted. Fleming's expert witness testified that the nine-foot machine was designed in such a manner as to require cleaning the top. In order to clean the top of the machine, a platform was required. The platform Woodman originally supplied was removed because the Woodman machines were installed so close together that the top of the machine in question could not be reached with the Woodman platform. Although the Woodman platform complied with OSHA regulations, Fleming claimed that Woodman's machine was designed such that certain cleaning had to be performed at the top of the machine. Configuration of the machine requiring cleaning the top and the location at which Woodman installed the machine rendered the Woodman platform unusable for cleaning the top of the machine. Thus, Fleming claims it was foreseeable that the platform would have to be removed and other means utilized to reach the top of the Woodman machine. The trial judge found that since it was undisputed that the machine was materially altered after delivery to Borden, he was required to grant summary judgment in favor of Woodman. This was error. While all parties agreed that the machine had been altered by removal of the Woodman platform, the parties vigorously dispute the foreseeability of this action and the relationship of the removal of the platform to the accident. Liability [may] ... be imposed upon a manufacturer or seller notwithstanding subsequent alteration of the product ... [when] the alteration could have been anticipated by the manufacturer or seller, or did not causally contribute to the damages or injuries complained of. 1 ROBERT D. HERSH & HENRY J. BAILEY, AMERICAN LAW OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY 2d § 130 (1974); see Kennedy v. Custom Ice Equipment Co., Inc., 271 S.C. 171, 246 S.E.2d 176 (1978) (question as to whether injury caused by defect in design or whether defect created by subsequent unforeseeable modification by third party for the jury); see generally Alberg v. Hardin Marine Corp., 387 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa App. 1986) (foreseeability of alteration for jury). Woodman not only manufactured the machine and the platform but also installed the machine. Fleming's expert testified that the design of the machine coupled with the placement of the machine gave rise to a violation of OSHA standards. This testimony created a jury question as to whether the machine was unreasonably dangerous. In that connection, it was for the jury to decide whether the removal of the Woodman platform was a foreseeable alteration of the machine since there was evidence that Woodman installed the machine in such a manner as to prevent the use of the platform it supplied with the machine. If the jury believed this evidence, it could legitimately conclude that removal of allegedly misdesigned platform was an alteration, but not a substantial or material one, inasmuch as it was foreseeable. If the jury so concludes, the defense of material alteration fails.