Court Opinion

ID: 9449347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:10:08.839993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:48.364656
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur in the result of the majority opinion on the basis that evidence is entirely lacking that those engaged in the hoisting operation were unaware of the load capacity of the block and hook. In my opinion there was a fatal lack of proof that the riggers did not know the limitations of the block and hook and that they needed a warning. Thus, I think there was no showing that a failure to warn was the proximate cause of the fatal accident.
I do not join in the majority’s views-that a manufacturer may immunize himself from liability by printing a catalog-that may or may not accompany the device into the hands of workmen — inexperienced perhaps — who are unaware of' the device’s inherent limitations, particularly when the normal use to which the device is put may endanger men’s lives-if overloaded.
Defendant-manufacturer, Upson-Walton, sold the block and hook in question to Brock Tool and Supply Co. which in *829turn apparently sold it to Phillips Getschow Co. While there was evidence that defendant’s customers were supplied with catalogs which listed the working capacity of its products, there was no proof that these catalogs came into the hands of ultimate consumers such as Phillips Getschow or its employee Brown, the rigger who was responsible for lifting the pipe that killed the decedent, McKay.
While there was also proof that capacities of standard hoisting equipment are listed in standard reference books available to the trade, I am not prepared to say that either the catalog or the reference books constituted the adequate warning that may be required of a manufacturer to a user of his product who is ignorant of the limitations of the product and which product may be dangerous if such limitations are exceeded.