Court Opinion

ID: 9387203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-16 15:00:18.796989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.996324
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30053         Document: 00516712228             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                         No. 22-30053                              April 14, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Dawson Vallee,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Crown Equipment Corporation, doing business as Crown Lift
   Trucks,

                                                                    Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:20-CV-1571

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Elrod and Oldham, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          A forklift accident left Dawson Vallee with an amputated leg. Vallee
   sued Crown Equipment Corporation, the forklift’s designer and
   manufacturer, alleging that a design defect in the forklift caused the accident.
   The district court granted summary judgment to Crown. We AFFIRM.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30053      Document: 00516712228           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30053

                                           I.
          The Crown RM6000 is a stand-up rider forklift designed to lift and
   move palleted materials in narrow warehouse aisles. To operate it, the driver
   stands sideways with his hands on the controls and leans against a backrest.
   The forks are located to the user’s right, and the operator compartment is
   open (i.e., there is no door) to the user’s left. To move the forklift, the
   operator moves the multi-task handle in the desired direction of travel. But
   movement is impossible unless (1) the operator’s left foot is depressing the
   brake pedal and (2) the operator’s right foot is in contact with the sensor pad.
   Once in motion, the operator can activate the brake by raising his left heel.
   The forklift can also be slowed or stopped using a technique called
   “plugging” where the operator pulls the multi-task handle in the opposite
   direction of the direction of travel.
          At the end of a work shift, Dawson Vallee attempted to park a Crown
   RM6000 forklift. But he lost control of the forklift. Vallee first attempted to
   “plug” the forklift to stop it and next attempted to apply the brakes by raising
   his left foot. Neither attempt worked. He testified that the forklift “jerked
   [him] around” and “tossed [his] leg around the outside of the machine.”
   While his left leg was exposed, the forklift collided with a pole and crushed
   his left foot between the pole and the forklift. Tragically, this led to the
   amputation of Vallee’s left leg below the knee.
          Vallee sued Crown in Louisiana state court. Crown removed to federal
   court and moved for summary judgment on Vallee’s design-defect claims.
   The district court granted summary judgment to Crown. Vallee now appeals.
                                           II.
          We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment and its
   application of Louisiana law de novo. See Burdett v. Remington Arms Co., 854
   F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                           2
Case: 22-30053      Document: 00516712228           Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30053

          The Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) provides “the
   exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damage caused by their
   products.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.52 et seq. Vallee’s LPLA claims are
   design-defect claims. See id. § 9:2800.56. To succeed on an LPLA design-
   defect claim, a plaintiff must put forward an “alternative design” that is both
   “capable of preventing the claimant’s damage,” § 9:2800.56(1), and meets
   the statute’s detailed risk-utility analysis, § 9:2800.56(2). The statute’s risk-
   utility analysis asks whether the “likelihood that the product’s design would
   cause the claimant’s damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the
   burden on the manufacturer of adopting such alternative design and the
   adverse effect, if any, of such alternative design on the utility of the product.”
   § 9:2800.56(2); see Morgan v. Gaylord Container Corp., 30 F.3d 586, 590 (5th
   Cir. 1994).
          Section 9:2800.56 requires that an alternative design “be reasonably
   specific and not based on mere speculation.” Gray v. Indus. Plant Maint., 2004
   WL 1661209, at *5 (E.D. La. 2004) (emphasis added); accord Tassin v. Sears,
   Roebuck & Co., 946 F. Supp. 1241, 1250–52 (M.D. La. 1996). Vague
   alternative concepts and suggestions—lacking in specific detail—do not
   provide a jury with enough information to determine whether a suggested
   alternative meets the statute’s requirements. See, e.g., Seither v. Winnebago
   Indus., Inc., 853 So. 2d 37, 41 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (a “mere[] concept”
   doesn’t qualify as an alternative design under the LPLA in the absence of
   “technical drawings, calculations, scientific study, photographs, or the
   publication of any engineering principles as to this proposed alternative
   design”); Andrew v. Dufour, 882 So. 2d 15, 25–26 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004)
   (concluding a suggested alternative design did not satisfy the LPLA where
   the evidence in the record only showed that the alternative design might have
   prevented the accident not that it would have prevented it); accord Crowe v.
   Winn-Dixie of La., Inc., 2010 WL 502782, at *3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2010).

                                           3
Case: 22-30053      Document: 00516712228          Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                    No. 22-30053

                                         III.
          Vallee proposed three alternative forklift designs. We hold none meet
   the LPLA’s requirements.
          A Safety Door. Vallee’s experts first opined that the addition of “a
   safety door on the operator compartment” is a “reasonably available
   alternative design[]” that “would have virtually eliminated the risk of the
   injury suffered by” Vallee. Vallee’s first expert, Dr. John Meyer, included in
   his report six different photographs of forklifts with doors manufactured by
   Crown or its competitors. Meyer stated that these photographs illustrate a
   “variety of stand-up forklifts displaying a number of different door designs
   and features.” But he did not include specifications regarding the actual
   designs (e.g., door dimensions, composition, attachment methods, etc.).
   Vallee’s second expert, Dr Richard Ziernicki, stated in his report that Crown
   “should have provided the forklift with a spring assisted or latching door, or
   operator guard as standard guarding equipment.” He claimed “[l]atching
   and spring loaded and even interlocked doors, or operator guards were all
   technologically and economically feasible.” Finally, Ziernicki surveyed
   multiple door designs from Crown’s competitors and included several
   photographs. But, like Meyer, he did not include specifications to accompany
   the photos in his report.
          The LPLA requires more detail. Neither expert included “technical
   drawings[] [or] calculations” to accompany their suggested alternative
   addition-of-a-door designs. Seither, 853 So. 2d at 41. And neither discussed
   how their safety door alternatives would actually apply to the specific forklift
   in question here—the RM6000. See Scordill v. Louisville Ladder Grp., LLC,
   2003 WL 22427981, at *9–10 (E.D. La. 2003) (requiring expert testimony to
   show how the suggested alternative design would apply to the “incident”

                                          4
Case: 22-30053      Document: 00516712228          Page: 5   Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                    No. 22-30053

   product in the case). Thus, the proposed safety door alternative doesn’t
   satisfy the LPLA’s requirements.
          A Modified Foot Pedal. Vallee’s experts next proposed modifying the
   foot-pedal braking system on the Crown RM6000. Meyer proposed
   “reprogramming [] the foot pedals on the floor of the Crown forklift” by
   “swapping the existing pedals, so that the brake is applied by the right foot,
   rather than the left.” To illustrate this, he included two diagrams of the
   existing design with arrows labeling where the new pedal would go. He
   acknowledged that, although he hadn’t “addressed any minimal changes in
   the shape and/or position of the pedals themselves, . . . one could expect that
   minor ergonomic adjustments could occur to maximize the effectiveness of
   the new pedal layout.” Further, Meyer suggested “[a]nother potential
   alternative design” of the foot pedals. For this alternative, he pointed to a
   pushdown brake used by a different forklift manufacturer. Meyer asserted his
   belief that “the addition of a door is required to achieve acceptable risk,”
   whereas the foot-pedal modifications merely “could . . . have prevented Mr.
   Vallee’s accident from occurring.” (emphasis added). Ziernicki by contrast
   stated that he would support “[e]ither having the brake under both feet with
   the operator trained to use the right foot, or having a pushdown brake with
   placement sensors to encourage proper operator positioning of both feet.”
          Once again, neither expert included any specific details to support
   their alternative foot-pedal design concepts. See Seither, 853 So.2d at 41
   (concluding the absence of “technical drawings” and “calculations” meant
   a suggested alternative concept did not meet the LPLA’s requirements).
   Meyer’s two “diagrams” amounted to pictures of the design that already
   exists, and he recognized that he did not actually “address[]” the effects of
   his proposed foot-pedal designs to the RM6000. See Scordill, 2003 WL
   22427981, at *9–10 (requiring expert testimony to show how the suggested
   alternative design would apply to the “incident” product in the case). And

                                         5
Case: 22-30053      Document: 00516712228           Page: 6    Date Filed: 04/14/2023

                                     No. 22-30053

   Ziernicki included no detail whatsoever. Thus, the experts’ proposed foot-
   pedal-modification alternatives also do not satisfy the LPLA’s requirements.
          A Backrest Sensor. Finally, Vallee’s experts proposed “the addition of
   a backrest presence sensor that detects when an operator is in t[he] normal
   position, . . . and ensures that the travel circuit is disconnected when this
   position is not maintained.”
          Even assuming Vallee didn’t forfeit his backrest-sensor argument by
   failing to include the design in his pretrial statement, the record is clear that
   Vallee’s back remained against the backrest during the incident. That means
   he cannot show that any form of backrest sensor was capable of preventing
   his damage as required by § 9:2800.56(1). ROA.22188–89 (citing Vallee’s
   deposition where he testifies that he had his “back against the backrest”
   during the incident).
                                         IV.
          Finally, Vallee asserts that the district court erred by requiring him to
   commit to one alternative design rather than proffering more than one. We
   disagree that the district court imposed any such requirement. Louisiana law
   allows plaintiffs to proffer multiple alternative designs. See, e.g., Johnson v.
   Black & Decker U.S., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1360, 1367 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1997)
   (considering two). But the plaintiff still must prove that at least one of them
   meets the requirements of § 9:2800.56. Vallee failed to do so.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          6