|
Murray v. Fairbanks Morse --- 610 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1979)
Facts
Norwilton Murray (plaintiff) was working as an installer of equipment under Litwin Corporation. He was assigned to install an electrical control panel at a refinery. The panel was built by Beloit (defendant) to Litwin's specifications. During the operation of protecting the integrity of the instrumentation inside the panel, the plaintiff had to lean over to the open space and the employee of the defendant gave way, causing the plaintiff to fall down approximately ten feet to the concrete floor. The incident severely injured the plaintiff, half-paralyzed him. The plaintiff brought this suit against the parent company of Beloit, Fairbanks Morse under a products liability, an alternative for strict liability, for the defective control panel and negligence. The district court applied comparative negligence statute and held to reduce five percent out of total two million damages since the defendant was liable and the plaintiff was also negligent in part.
Issue
Is the comparative negligence statute in strict products liability action applicable to reduce the damages proportionate to the plaintiff’s fault when he assumed the risk of dangerous condition of the defective product?
Rules
Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Construction & Design Co.
Under a comparative causation approach, once the jury has determined that the product defect caused the injury, the defendant is strictly liable for the harm caused by his defective product. The jury, however, would be instructed to reduce the award of damages "in proportion to the plaintiff's contribution to his own loss or injury."
Application
The plaintiff argued that five percent reduction from the damages is inappropriate since the defendant is strictly liable for making the defective control panel so that the cross-member had been only tack-welded to the unit. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the damages were excessive because the plaintiff himself assumed the risk of dangerous conditions of the work. The court agreed with the lower court’s decision of applying the Virgin Islands comparative negligence statute in a present strict products liability action. True, the doctrine of strict product liability is a strong tool in protecting the consumers against defective products. However, the consumer should also be careful when he assumes the risk of the potential danger of the product while using it. In such a case, the theory of comparative negligence can be the most equitable means of ascertaining ultimate tort liability, because the jury would reduce the award of damages in proportion to the plaintiff's contribution to his own loss or injury. (Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Construction & Design Co.) Here, the plaintiff indeed unreasonably exposed himself to a well-known risk of injury, and this fact should be considered to diminish his recovery. Therefore, the lower court’s instruction to diminish the recovery proportionate to the plaintiff’s fault was appropriate.
Holding
Yes, comparative negligence statute is applicable to reduce the total damages proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.
Conclusion
Affirmed.
Feedback and notes
There are three types of defective product theories-manufacturing defect, design defect, warning defect. The theory can be individually selected or at times, it can be combined with each other. The major difference between the manufacturing defect and design defect is, whether the particular product is defective or all of the products are defective. A good example can be the recall incident by the Japanese automobile manufacturer in the states. Escola, the coca cola bottle case, is also a manufacturing defect case because the bottle at issue had the defect. On the other hand, a warning defect requires the possible dangerous condition of the product if negligently used. The Mcdonald’s hot coffee is a good portrait of the warning defect. The Murray case is about manufacturing defects.
|