Genie Indus., Inc. v. Matak
No. 13-02042
Case Summary written by Zirwa Sheikh, Staff Member.
CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICE GREEN, JUSTICE JOHNSON, JUSTICE WILLETT, JUSTICE GUZMAN, and JUSTICE BROWN joined.
Genie Industries, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing and distributing aerial lifts worldwide. The aerial lift giving rise to this particular products liability suit is referred to as the Aerial Work Platform-40′ SuperSeries (AWP–40S). This lightweight portable airlift is mostly suited for indoor work and is designed for the purpose of allowing people to reach a variety of heights by being raised on a platform. Although the machinery is relatively easy to use, it requires that the “outriggers” attached to the base of the machine be placed on the ground for stability. The outriggers prevent the machine from tipping over. Once the work is complete, the outriggers can be removed, and the lift can be rolled around to travel through tight spaces. In addition to the manual’s descriptive warnings that caution users from removing the outriggers while the platform is raised, there exists an image depicting a man moving the lift while the platform remains elevated with an alerting inscription that warns people of the “tip-over hazard.”
Gulf Coast Electric employed the deceased, Walter Matak, to install fiber optic cables in the ceiling. The process of moving the aerial lift proved far too time consuming due to the lowering of the platform so Mr. Matak could step down, and the periodic deploying, uninstalling, and then redeploying of the outriggers. James Boggan, shortly thereafter, took the advice of John Adams both colleagues of Mr. Matak, and attempted to move the lift with Mr. Matak being fully elevated on the platform. The aerial lift tipped over, crashed to the floor and caused fatal injuries to Mr. Matak’s head. This suit for wrongful death and survivor damages resulted.
The trial court rendered in favor of Mr. Matak, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Justice Hecht explained that products liability law protects consumers from unreasonably dangerous and defective products. It does not, however, guarantee that the product will be free from any risk. To have a successful claim for products liability based on a design defect, plaintiffs are required to show that not only was the product defectively designed making it unreasonably dangerous, a safer alternative to this design exists, and the defect was the cause for the plaintiff’s injury.
Issue #1: Did a safer alternative design for AWP–40S exist?
The Court evaluated four designs to determine whether these models would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury without impairing the utility of the product and whether these designs were economically and technologically feasible at the time. The four designs consisted of the Automatic Drop-Down, Pothole Protection, Chain and Padlock, and Block design.
The Automatic Drop-Down model allows the platform to automatically descend if the outriggers that are meant to stabilize the lift are released. Justice Hecht contended that there was little evidence to indicate whether this design would have lowered the platform enough or would have stabilized the lift to prevent Mr. Matak’s fall. Additionally, Justice Hecht concluded that this design had the potential to increase the risk of injury if the platform began to suddenly descend.
The Pothole Protection design required the existing outriggers to be permanently attached to the lift to prevent the machine from tipping over if one of the wheels entered into the pothole. Justice Hecht contended that the placement of the outriggers would add to the lift’s weight and size, which would reduce the lift’s versatility—a key utility factor. Furthermore, there was little support from the evidence to suggest that the design would have proved to be safer.
The third design, Chain and Padlock required that the leveling jack handles on the machine be chained and padlocked once the outriggers were set by a key. Justice Hecht concluded that the need for a key does little to increase the safety, and the lift would remain susceptible to misuse by anyone having access to the key. In contrasting the current design to the Chain and Padlock, Justice Hecht concluded that locking and unlocking the jack handles to move the lift would prove to be more inconvenient.
The Block design required the replacement of two out of the four wheels on the lift with a block so movement of the machine would only be possible if the machine was tilted similar to a dolly, off of its block, and then rolled. Justice Hecht contended that tipping over a 1,000 pound lift would prove to be more difficult and would impact the utility of the machine.
The court rejected Genie’s argument that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of an alternative design that reduced the risk of injury, didn’t increase the risk to other users, didn’t impair the lift’s utility and was economically and technologically feasible. The Court held that although there was weak evidence to a safer alternative design such evidence was not less then a scintilla.
Issue #2: Was there evidence to suggest that the AWP-40S was unreasonably dangerous?
Whether a defective design causes a product to be unreasonably dangerous depends on whether the product’s risks outweigh its utility. The Court held that AWP-40S was not unreasonably dangerous.
In reaching the decision, the Court made five factor determinations. First, the Court held that the likelihood of injury from the airlift did not outweigh its utility. Second, the Court concluded that there was no evidence of a substitute that would meet the same need but be reasonably priced and be safer. Third, the Court reiterated its previous observation and contended that there was only slight evidence of a safer alternative design. Fourth, the Court held that the risk of a tip over was both obvious and readily avoidable. And lastly, the Court concluded that the danger of misusing the airlift was obvious to someone who may not even be trained in operating the airlift.
In conclusion, the Court rendered judgment in favor of Genie, contending that AWP-40S was not unreasonably dangerous, and even though there existed evidence of a safer alternative design, the evidence was only slight.
JUSTICE BOYD delivered a dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE LEHRMANN and JUSTICE DEVINE joined.
Justice Boyd contended that the determination of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact for the jury, and should not be decided by the Court. He adamantly disagreed with the Court’s decision to replace the jury’s judgment with its own as a matter of law. He argued that the duty of the Court is to accept the jury’s findings, that Genie lift’s risks outweighed its utility and therefore the lift was unreasonably dangerous unless reasonable minds could not differ. As long as reasonable minds can differ, the jury’s judgment trumps.
Justice Boyd agreed with the Court with respect to evidence in the record that indicated a safer alternative design. His primary disagreement was with the Court’s judgment regarding the lift’s safety. Justice Boyd contended that a reasonable jury could have found that the lift designed by Genie was unreasonably dangerous.
In rejecting the Court’s holding that the AWP-40s was not unreasonably dangerous because its risks were both obvious and cautioned against, Justice Boyd contended that such factors can not be conclusive in barring defective design liability. Furthermore, Justice Boyd conceded to the utility of the lifts, and accepted its advantages but contended that even though the lift may be substantially useful, it may still be accompanied by risks that may outweigh its utility.
Regarding assessing the risk related to the lift, Justice Boyd sided with Genie, holding that “the risk was [that] the operators would raise the leveling jacks and attempt to move the lift when the platform is elevated and occupied, despite the warning and the allegedly obvious and open dangers.” While the Court and Genie contended that the risk of misuse was slight, the risk was unforeseeable despite the warnings, and the lift was not unreasonably dangerous because of a small number of cases, Justice Boyd contended that this conclusion ran contrary to precedent. Justice Boyd contended that a small number of accidents compared to the number of machines that are used without such accidents worldwide did not conclusively establish that the lift’s risk was slight. Furthermore, he proceeded to argue that a reasonable juror could conclude that the relevant risk was high despite the small number of actual cases where accidents occurred. Additionally, Justice Boyd contended that based on evidentiary findings a reasonable juror could conclude that the lift’s risk outweighed its utility. Moreover, Justice Boyd stated that reasonable jurors could have different views regarding: (a) awareness of the risks/dangerousness present in product; (b) whether the dangers were avoidable (c) consumer expectation; and (d) “gravity and likelihood of injury” from the use of the product.
Consequently, Justice Boyd argued that since some evidence supported the jury’s findings, the Court was obligated to respect its decision. Even though Justice Boyd conceded that he, himself, would have voted in favor of Genie as a jury member, he contended that the presence of evidentiary findings to support the jury’s verdict should be acknowledged, and the jury’s determinations should be affirmed.