Court Opinion

ID: 9461992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:29:24.767871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:21.118544
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge
(dissenting).
I would have affirmed the judgment of the district court “from the bench” following oral argument, in view of the clear absence of any issue of law upon which reversal might conceivably be premised.
The product in question is a portable machine used by plumbers for cutting, reaming and threading pipe. Its motor is encased in a housing which is mounted on a tripod. The power switch is located in a recessed area on the underside of the housing. If the operator is standing on this side of the machine, the switch is easily within his reach; however, if he is operating the machine from the front or opposite side, the switch is not readily accessible. When Collins’ jacket became entangled in the rotating pipe, he was unable to reach the power switch. By the time one of his employees turned the power off, Collins’ left arm had been broken, dislocated and mangled, requiring amputation above the elbow.
The Rigid 300 is not equipped with any kind of emergency power cut-off device. Neither the machine nor the operator’s manual furnished by the manufacturer contains any warnings alerting the potential user to operate the machine from the power switch side or cautioning against the danger that loose clothing might become entangled.
It was plaintiff’s contention that such warnings should have been given and that the Rigid 300’s design rendered defendant’s product unreasonably dangerous. The design defects alleged by the plaintiff related to the location of the power switch and the absence of any emergency cut-off device. Plaintiff introduced a considerable amount of expert testimony to support these contentions, including evidence regarding the feasibility of relocating the power switch on the machine so that it would be accessible from all operating positions, and evidence that it would have been feasible and relatively inexpensive to equip the machine with an emergency cut-off device (“kill-switch”), located either on the top of the machine or in the form of a foot switch. Without extensively reviewing the evidence introduced by plaintiff, suffice it to say that a considerable amount of evidence, in the form of expert testimony and otherwise, was introduced in support of plaintiff’s claim that the Rigid 300’s design rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and that the danger of injury was enhanced by the manufacturer’s failure to post warnings on the machine or in the operator’s manual.
The jury was properly charged with the task of determining whether the design of defendant’s product rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and if so, whether this dangerous condition was the principal cause of Collins’ injuries. The jury concluded that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the dangerous condition of the product and by the negligence of the plaintiff, apportioning 65% of the responsibility to the defendant and 35% to plaintiff, in accordance with Wisconsin law.
The conclusion reached by the majority is not based upon a finding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury or that plaintiff’s theory of liability was legally insufficient. Nor is it grounded upon a finding that evidence was improperly admitted, or that some other trial error was committed. It is based solely on the majority’s factual determination that defendant’s product “was reasonably safe for its intended use . and that appellee’s negligence was the sole cause of the injuries sustained . . .
After reviewing a cold record, the majority thus substitutes their evaluation of the evidence for that of a jury which saw the witnesses and heard their testimony at trial. In my opinion, the result reached by the majority improperly and inexcusably invades the province of the jury. I would affirm.