Court Opinion

ID: 9584419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:47:56.713348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:45.158922
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Wabash Metal Products, Inc. was not entitled to summary judgment. Wabash was entitled to summary judgment on Dyer’s design defect claim because the record shows that a pipefitter hired by AT Plastics Corporation to move the subject hydraulic press used grossly excessive force to lift the press by standing on top of a lever with his entire body weight to force the press off its base. This unforeseeable application of extreme force to the press caused the press to topple off its base and was the sole proximate cause of the injury sustained by Dyer when the press fell on his leg. As to the claim that the press was defective because Wabash failed to give adequate warning of the dan*891ger involved in moving the press, Wabash was entitled to summary judgment because it was not necessary to warn Dyer or his coworkers, who were all licensed journeyman pipefitters experienced in the movement of heavy machinery and aware of the dangers, that tilting the heavy press was dangerous and could cause it to fall over. Because there was no duty to warn Dyer, I concur specially in the majority’s conclusion that AT Plastics was entitled to summary judgment on Dyer’s claim that it negligently failed to provide him with warnings contained in the installation manual provided by Wabash with the press.
Wabash manufactured the press and sold it to AT Plastics, and Mann Mechanical Company, a mechanical contractor, was hired to install the press at the AT Plastics facility. Dyer and his foreman, Rozier, both of whom were licensed journeyman pipefitters, were working for Mann installing the press when it fell on Dyer’s leg while they were moving it into position.
Dyer sued Wabash for his injuries claiming the press was defectively designed, alleging in his complaint that it was “top-heavy and/ or had a high center of gravity which caused it to fall on Plaintiff during the installation process.” Dyer also alleged the press was defective because Wabash failed to adequately warn him of the danger inherent in moving and tilting the press during installation. Dyer named AT Plastics as a defendant claiming it negligently failed to provide him with a copy of the manual Wabash sent to AT Plastics along with the press which contained warnings and recommendations for installation.
Wabash moved for summary judgment and submitted an expert affidavit from its director of engineering, a mechanical engineer, who examined the press. The press was in the shape of a rectangular box standing 74 inches high and having a flat base 36 and three-quarter inches wide and 22 and one-half inches deep. The engineer measured the material used in the construction of the press and calculated that the total weight of the press was 1,597.2 pounds. He found that the weight of all the material above the vertical mid-point of the press was 596.2 pounds, and the weight of all the material below the vertical mid-point was 1,001 pounds. In other words, the bottom half of the press was about twice as heavy as the top half of the press. The affidavit demonstrated that the press was not top-heavy and had a vertical center of gravity in its bottom half.
In response to these undisputed facts, Dyer amended his complaint adding allegations that the press was “extremely unstable” and that, unknown to him, the press “could not be lifted from one end only as such lifting may cause the machine to fall over,” and that the press “could not be lifted and installed in the normal, customary and ordinary way such equipment is generally installed by his profes*892sion. . . .” Dyer also submitted expert affidavits from two engineers in opposition to summary judgment. Based upon a review by the engineers of the press manual, drawings of the press, and depositions of nonexpert witnesses including Dyer and Rozier, these affidavits concluded the press was unstable and dangerous to move or lift on one end. One of the affidavits apparently reached the conclusion that, despite having a vertical center of gravity below its mid-point, the press was unstable and dangerous to move or lift because its side-to-side and front-to-back centers of gravity were off center. Both affidavits also gave expert opinion that warnings were necessary and that the warnings given by Wabash in the manual it provided with the press were inadequate because warnings should have been placed on the exterior of the press. The trial court denied summary judgment to Wabash concluding that issues of fact remained.
1. The undisputed facts showing how this accident occurred demonstrate that the trial court erred by denying summary judgment to Wabash on the defective design claim. Dyer and his foreman, Rozier, were the only persons present when the press fell on Dyer’s leg. Both Dyer and Rozier testified that they are licensed journeyman pipefitters and that moving heavy machinery is a common part of their work. Dyer testified that he had moved thousands of pieces of machinery weighing in excess of 2,000 pounds. Both Dyer and Rozier were experienced in moving heavy machinery like the press at issue. According to Rozier, his pipefitting crew had already moved the press several times prior to the accident using the same method being employed by him and Dyer when the accident occurred. Rozier said the base of the press was “as flat as my bank account,” and that, in order to get the press off the floor to move it by means of a pallet jack or forklift, they had to place and remove pieces of wood known as “cribbing” under the base of the press. As described by Dyer and Rozier, removal of cribbing was a process that required tilting the press in one direction, then another, to lift the base to remove the cribbing from under the press. Rozier testified that, when the press was moved prior to the accident, it was not top-heavy, or side-heavy, nor did it tilt when placed level on the floor. Dyer admitted that in moving the press to remove cribbing, the press did not appear top-heavy or dangerous. In short, all of the testimony from pipefitters who moved and tilted the press to place or remove cribbing on several occasions prior to the accident was that it was not top-heavy, excessively heavy to one side, or otherwise unstable.
Dyer and Rozier testified that the accident occurred as they were attempting to remove wooden cribbing from under the press. Standing on one foot and using his other foot to press down on a seven-foot-long pipe inserted as a lever under the base of the press, with a block of wood as a fulcrum under the pipe, Rozier had successfully tilted up *893one side of the base of the press while Dyer removed the cribbing, then lowered the base down leaving that side of the press about two inches lower than the other side. Moving over to the high side of the tilted press, Rozier again inserted the lever under the base and pushed down with one foot to tilt up the base of the press. Rozier said he was only trying to raise the base a fraction of an inch to allow Dyer to remove the cribbing. Unfortunately, two attempts by Rozier to tilt the press by pushing down on the lever with his foot were unsuccessful. Rozier then turned his back to the press and to Dyer, who was leaning down by the cribbing. Using an adjacent cabinet to balance himself, Rozier stepped up on top of the lever with both feet, thereby forcing the lever down and exerting leverage up on the base of the press with the entire weight of his body. Both Dyer and Rozier testified that the press suddenly fell over at that point, trapping Dyer’s right leg underneath. . .
The record shows that the press fell on Dyer only when grossly excessive force was applied to lift the base of the press when Rozier stood on top of the lever with his entire body weight. It was not foreseeable that an experienced pipefitter installing the press would deviate from otherwise safe and effective methods of moving and lifting the press and suddenly apply extreme force to lift the base of the press. Even assuming the expert affidavits produced by Dyer created a factual issue as to whether the press was imbalanced from side to side, the undisputed facts in this case show that, whatever that imbalance may have been, it had no practical effect on the ability of the pipefitters to tilt and move the press using the methods they employed prior to standing on the lever to tilt the base of the press. All of the evidence from the experienced pipefitters who handled, moved, and tilted the press prior to the accident was that it was not top-heavy, side-heavy, or otherwise unstable. Under these facts, it is clear that the alleged design defect played no significant role in causing the accident. Rather, the grossly excessive force applied with the lever to the base of the press was an intervening act that forcefully toppled the press off its base onto Dyer and constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. Ogletree v. Navistar Intl. Transp. Corp., 245 Ga. App. 1 (535 SE2d 545) (2000).
It is well settled that there can be no proximate cause where there has intervened between the act of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, an independent, intervening, act of someone other than the defendant, which was not foreseeable by [the] defendant, was not triggered by defendant’s act, and which was sufficient of itself to cause the injury.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. Central of Ga. R. Co., *894192 Ga. App. 806, 807 (386 SE2d 386) (1989); McAuley v. Wills, 251 Ga. 3, 7 (303 SE2d 258) (1983). Although a determination as to proximate cause is usually left to a jury, in plain and undisputed cases the court may make the determination as a matter of law. Id.; Southern Bell Tel. &c. Co. v. Dolce, 178 Ga. App. 175, 176 (342 SE2d 497) (1986).
This is such a plain and indisputable case. Any product having a shape similar to the subject press, whether it be a refrigerator, file cabinet, or chest of drawers, will fall over if enough force is applied to make it fall. These products are not defective because they will fall over under the application of extreme force. “[A] manufacturer is not an insurer that its product is, from a design viewpoint, incapable of producing injury.” Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732, 737 (450 SE2d 671) (1994). Common sense compels the conclusion that Wabash cannot be held liable for failing to design a press which would remain upright despite the grossly excessive force applied to it in this case.
2. The trial court also erred by denying summary judgment to Wabash on Dyer’s claim that the press was defective because Wabash failed to warn him and other pipefitters of the danger inherent in moving and installing the press.
A failure to warn claim is distinct from a design defect claim and can arise even if a product is not defective. Battersby v. Boyer, 241 Ga. App. 115, 117 (526 SE2d 159) (1999). Where a manufacturer has reason to know that danger may result from a particular use of the product, it may be required to give adequate warning of the danger, and failure to do so, where required, renders the product defective. Id. Dyer claims Wabash should have warned that the press was unstable and dangerous to move, could not be safely lifted from one end, and could not be safely moved by the usual methods used in the pipefitting profession. He claims the failure to adequately warn him was the proximate cause of the injury he suffered when the press fell on his leg.
Failure to warn claims are subject, however, to the well-recognized exception that manufacturers have no duty to warn of danger which is obvious or generally known. Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 (516 SE2d 848) (1999). Related to this exception is the rule that, where a product is used by members of a particular group or profession, there is no duty to warn against risks generally known to such group or profession. Id.; Exxon Corp. v. Jones, 209 Ga. App. 373, 375 (433 SE2d 350) (1993). The record shows that Dyer and his foreman, Rozier, who were moving the press when it fell over, were licensed journeyman pipefitters who moved heavy machinery for a living and had experience in moving and installing thousands of pieces of heavy machinery like the subject press. Rozier testified that moving the press was “nothing out of the *895ordinary.” We found in Moore v. ECI Mgmt., 246 Ga. App. 601, 607 (542 SE2d 115) (2000), that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to a manufacturer on a failure to warn claim because “[t]he danger of electrocution from miswiring an electrical appliance should be both open and obvious to an experienced installer.” Similarly, the danger that a piece of heavy machinery could be unstable and fall over when moved or tilted is a risk generally known to experienced pipefitters. It follows that Wabash had no duty to warn Dyer and other pipefitters of that danger, even though Wabash nevertheless provided warnings in the manual it sent with the press to AT Plastics. Moreover, “[w]hen the injured party is aware of the danger, failure to warn of that danger cannot be the proximate cause of the injury.” Royal v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 254 Ga. App. 696, 705 (563 SE2d 451) (2002).
Decided November 26, 2002
Reconsideration denied December 16, 2002.
Shapiro, Fussell, Wedge, Smotherman & Martin, Robert B. Wedge, Tracey Walker, for appellant.
McKenna, Long & Aldridge, David N. Stern, Russell J. Rogers, Jeremy M. Moeser, for appellee.
Because there was no duty under the circumstances to warn Dyer, it follows that AT Plastics was also entitled to summary judgment on Dyer’s claim that it negligently failed to pass on the warnings contained in the installation manual provided by Wabash with the press.