Court Opinion

ID: 9477868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:33:19.042563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:05.716418
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse the grant of summary judgment to appellee Joy Manufacturing. I would read the Kentucky Product Liability Act to except modifications made with the knowledge and acquiescence of the manufacturer from the § 411.320(1) limitation of liability. Because it is a question of fact whether Joy knew of and acquiesced in Peabody Coal’s modification of the continuous miner, the grant of summary judgment should be reversed.
The majority declines to read the common law concept of foreseeability into the Product Liability Act. This interpretation seems correct, as the Act does not incorporate the reasoning of § 402A of the Restatement of Torts (Second). However, the issue in this case is not one of “foreseeable modification.” Instead, the issue is whether a manufacturer’s knowledge of and acquiescence in a modification is a modification “made in accordance with specifications or instructions furnished by the manufacturer.” The majority dispenses with the inquiry into whether the modification was authorized by stating that “there is no question that Joy Manufacturing did not furnish specifications or instructions within the plain meaning of those words.” However, I do not think that the Kentucky Supreme Court would go so far as to hold that manufacturers must furnish written specifications and instructions before their actions fall within the exception to the statute. The “specifications or instructions” requirement should be interpreted to include modifications of which the manufac*1155turer had actual knowledge. The purpose of exempting modifications made according to the manufacturer’s specifications or instructions from the terms of the statute is to eliminate the “foreseeable modification” doctrine of the Restatement and substitute a test in which manufacturers can only be held liable when they know and approve of the uses to which their products are being put. Therefore, actual knowledge and acquiescence has the identical effect as the explicit furnishing of specifications and instructions. Modifications that the manufacturer authorizes cannot shield the manufacturer from liability.