Court Opinion

ID: 9474487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:58:32.380753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:06.822761
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Judge Contie’s well reasoned disposition of the design defect claim based on a strict liability theory set out in Part IIB of the opinion. I concur also in the disposition of the claimed error in the jury verdict as set out in Part III.
I would, however, affirm the district court in its directed verdict on the negligent design claim. The actions of Briney constituted not only a clear assumption of risk but, in my view, that kind of negligence and disregard of intended use of the saw in question that would preclude any reasonable trier of fact from reaching a decision for plaintiff. Plaintiff’s expert, Tamny, testified on cross-examination as follows:
Q. You can lift the guard up, Mr. Tamny, leaving the spreader and the anti-kickback pawls in place, can you not?
A. That’s true.
Q. That was not done, was it?
A. That’s right.
Q. Similarly, the anti-kickback pawls, which were also designed to prevent the most common type of accidents on this table saw, were removed, were they not?
A. The whole guard assembly was taken off and that consists of the guard, the guard support arm, the anti-kickbacks and the spreader which were all permanently fastened together.
THE COURT: Is that your answer, is it yes?
THE WITNESS: It’s not a separate item, your Honor.
THE COURT: He is not indicating nor suggesting that it’s a separate item. He is simply asking you whether this was removed, whether it was removed in conjunction with other parts , or separately.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes. It’s a part of what was removed.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. CRIST:
Q. Mr. Briney at the time of this accident was, to your understanding, performing a through cut, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. The manual has repeated warnings to the effect that the guard should not be removed during through cuts, does it not?
A. That’s right.
Q. And those instructions are more than sufficient to communicate that message, aren’t they?
A. I think so.
Q. That warning is also contained on the saw itself, is it not?
*592A. I believe so.
Q. You don’t know?
A. I think it’s on the front of the saw.
* * * * * *
(Pause).
A. Yes. Item two says, “Use saw blade guard for through sawing.”
Q * * *
Mr. Briney violated the repeated warnings in the owner’s manual not to remove the blade guard during through cuts, did he not?
A. That’s right.
Q. Mr. Briney violated the instruction set forth on the saw itself not to remove the blade guard on through cuts, did he not?
A. Sure.. I mean it’s the same instruction.
Q. And in doing so he exposed himself to a significant hazard, did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. If the guard had been in place, Mr. Briney’s accident would not have occurred, would it?
A. Probably not. At least the likelihood would have been greatly reduced.
It was also apparent to the expert that the kind of cut attempted should have been attempted from the other side of the saw. Not only did Briney remove three safety devices, he also attempted a cut from the wrong side of the saw so that the mitre gauge hold down clamp would not be effective. I would hold that the saw under these circumstances was not being used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner as a matter of law despite Tamny’s testimony about a design flaw or defect.
It is rudimentary that in order to establish actionable negligence, one must show the existence of a duty, a breach of the duty, and an injury resulting proximately therefrom. Di Guldo v. Caponi (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 247 N.E.2d 732 [47 O.O.2d 282]; Feldman v. Howard (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 189, 226 N.E.2d 564 [39 O.O.2d 228]. The existence of a duty depends on the foreseeability of the injury. Ford Motor Co. v. Tomlinson (C.A.6, 1956), 229 F.2d 873 [59 O.O. 345]; Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1934), 128 Ohio St. 335, 190 N.E.2d 924.
The test for foreseeability is whether a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated that an injury was likely to result from the performance or nonperformance of an act. Freeman v. United States (C.A.6, 1975), 509 F.2d 626; Thompson v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co. (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 116, 224 N.E.2d 131 [38 O.O.2d 294]; Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co. (1950), 153 Ohio St. 31, 90 N.E.2d 859 [41 O.O. 117]. The foreseeability of harm usually depends on the defendant’s knowledge. Thompson, supra.
* * $ $ * $
The design of a product cannot be held defective or unreasonably dangerous under Section 402(A) of the Restatement of Torts 2d unless the product is being used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 456, 424 N. E.2d 568 [21 0.0.3d 285], Furthermore, a manufacturer need not anticipate all uses to which its product may be put, nor guarantee that the product is incapable of causing injury in all of its possible uses. Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp. (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 227, 218 N.E.2d 185 [35 O.O.2d 404]. See, also, Strimbu v. American Chain & Cable Company, Inc. (C.A.6, 1975), 516 F.2d 781; Shumard v. General Motors Corp. (S.D.Ohio 1967), 270 F.Supp. 311 [41 O.O.2d 345]; Jones v. White Motor Corp. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 162, 401 N.E.2d 223 [15 O. O.3d 292]; Oropesa v. Huffman Mfg. Co. (1965), 9 Ohio App.2d 337, 224 N.E.2d 503 [38 O.O.2d 390]. 1
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 472 N.E.2d 707, 710, 711 (Ohio 1984).
Even assuming that the saw may have been designed in a safer manner, I would affirm the decision of the district court on the negligent design claim under the circumstances of this case.