Court Opinion

ID: 9720422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:30:04.611214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:17.921435
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that the plaintiff failed to introduce substantial evidence to support the elements of his strict liability claim. However, I also find the defendant failed to introduce substantial evidence to support a negligence claim.
The plaintiff climbed over a guardrail and walked on a narrow ledge over a moving auger. Plaintiff was an experienced farmer. He knew the dangers of moving equipment. There were warning stickers on the combine warning him of the dangers. Another route was available to him, but he walked on the narrow ledge over the auger because it was quicker.
Plaintiff is a fine young man who suffered a serious injury. The accident was clearly the result of his carelessness in walking on a small ledge over working machinery.
I would dismiss plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff attempted to establish defendant's negligence through the testimony of John Se-vart, a graduate mechanical engineer who has no experience or education in the design of farm machinery. He has never used similar machinery and looked at the combine for an hour and a half. He has *79been involved in 1,000 litigations (ninety-percent of the time for the plaintiff). He has claimed expertise in the design of a number of machines, including turkey feather pluckers, wheelchair lifts, wheelchair equipment, motorcycles, PTO systems, farm augers, cranes, storage harvesters, bulldozers, roller compactors, concrete mixers, feed grinders, garden tractors, and mound balers.
There is no credible evidence defendant was negligent.