Court Opinion

ID: 9855065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:19:01.235697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:39.716535
License: Public Domain

Howell, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes the trial *275judge erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. I would hold the trial judge properly found the issues in this case were for the jury’s determination, and affirm.
In every action the plaintiff must establish the elements of his cause of action. This is an action in strict liability, and Anderson had the burden of establishing the ladder as manufactured was unreasonably dangerous, and the dangerous condition proximately caused the injury. Whether Anderson met this burden was a question of law, therefore the threshold determination by the trial judge was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the product was unreasonably dangerous. See Claytor v. General Motors Corp., 277 S.C. 259, 286 S.E. (2d) 129 (1982). The trial judge must balance the utility of the risk inherent in the design with the magnitude of the risk in using the product, Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E. (2d) 321 (Ct. App. 1995), and this consideration must include the cost involved in added safety and the industry standards that existed at the time the product was manufactured. Reed v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., 697 F. (2d) 1192 (4th Cir. 1982). There is no dispute that this product is useful when constructed solely of aluminum. The experts agreed that in regard to the weight of the ladder, aluminum is preferred. However, both experts also testified aluminum is highly conductive. Studies by the Consumer Affairs Commission produced by the plaintiff established that between 1982 and 1985 an average of 65 people per year lost their lives by electrocution while using ladders. These studies also show that most electrocutions involving ladders occur while moving the ladders into place, that a person’s ability to judge heights is commonly unreliable, and most people do not attach significance to exact measurement because they mistakenly believe that overhead wires are normally insulated. All these factors are relevant in the judge’s balancing of the utility and the risk of the product.
The issue is not whether the trial judge considers the product unreasonably dangerous, but what the evidence reflects may reasonably be regarded as unreasonably dangerous. If the trial judge determines the product can be considered unreasonably dangerous, then the ultimate question of whether it is in fact unreasonably dangerous is for the jury’s determi*276nation. Fleming v. Borden, Inc., 316 S.C. 452, 450 S.E. (2d) 589 (1994). In considering Green Bull’s motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge was required to view the evidence and all its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Anderson. See Crossley v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 307 S.C. 354, 415 S.E. (2d) 393 (1992) (in deciding motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence and all reasonable inference must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party). Because this court is not a jury, we cannot weight the evidence nor consider matters of credibility. Young v. Bost, 241 S.C. 289, 128 S.E. (2d) 118 (1962); Austin v. Independent Life and Accident Ins. Co., 296 S.C. 156, 370 S.E (2d) 918 (Ct. App. 1988).
On the issue of the defective nature of the ladder, the plaintiff’s expert testified the state of the art in 1988 at the time of the manufacture of the ladder was such that the usefulness and desirability would not be compromised by either constructing it entirely of fiberglass or inserting a nonconductive section made of fiberglass above the point where anyone would handle the ladder and below the point where it would likely come in contact with electricity. The only disadvantages would be a possibility of wear that would threaten the structural integrity and a problem of some added weight affecting portability. Both problems, according to him, are negligible, because the weight will not increase more than ten percent and the wear could be easily monitored to alert the user that the replacement sections should be installed. He further testified that electrocution hazards have compelled manufacturers of C.B. antennas, television antennas, and sailboat masts to construct their products using nonconductive links to reduce the likelihood of electrical shock when they come into contact with electrical wire. It was also pointed out that electrical utility companies use solid fiberglass ladders. According to him the use of either solid fiberglass or fiberglass nonconductive links virtually negates the chance of electrical shock and the cost involved would be minimal.
The defendant’s expert agreed the state of the art was such that the fiberglass could be used in either total construction or in nonconductive links without compromising the utility of the ladder except to the extent wear would threaten the structural integrity. However, he also testified the utility of the lad*277der would be compromised by the added weight. He disagreed that the use of nonconductive link and to some extent a solid fiberglass ladder would negate the chance of electrocution. He testified the hoist would still require a steel cable that could conduct electricity, and a fiberglass construction presented the added danger in the roofing industry of the fiberglass becoming contaminated and lulling the user into a false sense of security, thus increasing the danger of electrocution. He further testified a one-foot nonconductive link would not be adequate because electricity can arc as much as one foot bridging the nonconductive link. A recognized defect of design is material used in the product which is of inadequate strength or quality. Mickle v. Blackmon, 252 S.C. 202, 166 S.E. (2d) 173 (1969) (manufacturer liable for design defect where it could reasonably be concluded that a motor vehicle was manufactured from material which could not tolerate a frequently encountered aspect of the environment in which it would be employed). I would hold, as the trial judge did, there was ample competent evidence in the record for the trial judge to submit the issue of whether the ladder was defective by design to the jury.