828 F.3d 391
6th Cir.2016Background
- Anthony Smith, a miner, had his left lower leg amputated after his foot was crushed in a "pinch point" between a hydraulic pusher and an outer guide rail on a high-wall mining (HWM) launch platform.
- The HWM system was manufactured by Joy Technologies in the 1990s; outer guide rails that created the pinch point were added later by a third party (Triplett) without Joy's knowledge.
- Smith testified he had been warned about the pinch point and shown emergency stops; the system had no additional visual/audible warnings or guards.
- Smith and his wife sued Joy (and ICG, later settled) for negligence and strict products liability (design defect and failure to warn); Chartis intervened to protect workers’ compensation subrogation.
- At trial the district court gave instructions: (1) a "knowing-user" instruction stating a manufacturer has no duty to warn a user who was aware of the danger, and (2) an instruction describing the statutory rebuttable presumption of nondefectiveness (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.310). The jury found for Joy.
- On appeal the Smiths challenged both instructions and sought certification to the Kentucky Supreme Court; Chartis challenged an apportionment instruction (mooted by the verdict). The Sixth Circuit affirmed and denied certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a manufacturer can be liable for negligent failure to warn when the plaintiff knew of the danger | Smith: Under Kentucky comparative-fault principles (McIntosh/Shelton/Carter), plaintiff's knowledge should affect apportionment, not bar duty to warn; question should be certified | Joy: Kentucky law long-held that there is no duty to warn of a known danger to a knowing user; additional warning would be useless | Held: Affirmed — Kentucky law does not impose a duty to warn known dangers in products-liability cases; McIntosh/Shelton/Carter are premises-liability cases and distinguishable; no certification. |
| Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury on the statutory rebuttable presumption of nondefectiveness (KRS § 411.310) | Smith: Jury instructions should not present legal presumptions; the judge should decide rebuttal as a matter of law and then instruct the jury on the legal framework | Joy: The statute requires rebuttal by a preponderance and a correct statement of the statute to the jury is permissible; district court has discretion to give such an instruction if it states state law correctly | Held: Affirmed — instruction accurately reflected § 411.310, did not mislead or prejudice the jury, and certification unnecessary. |
| Whether to certify questions of Kentucky law to the Kentucky Supreme Court | Smith: Requested certification on both the knowing-user issue and the presumption-of-nondefectiveness issue | Joy: Federal court should decide if state law is settled; certification unnecessary because precedent and principles suffice | Held: Denied — state law and precedents give sufficient guidance; federal court discretion to decline certification. |
| Chartis’s challenge to apportionment instruction | Chartis: Inclusion of Southern Coal as third-party settlor was improper | Respondent: N/A (jury verdict in favor of Joy) | Held: Moot — jury never reached apportionment; no judgment against which Chartis could recover. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky River Med. Ctr. v. McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (modern premises-liability analysis of open-and-obvious dangers)
- Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc’y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013) (premises-liability duty to maintain safe premises despite open-and-obvious conditions)
- Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC, 471 S.W.3d 288 (Ky. 2015) (premises-liability application of comparative-fault to open-and-obvious hazards)
- King v. Ford Motor Co., 209 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2000) (Kentucky products-liability principle: no duty to warn of known danger)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1998) (noting § 411.310’s preponderance-language suggests jury issue may be appropriate)
- Rentschler v. Lewis, 33 S.W.3d 518 (Ky. 2000) (skeptical view of jury instructions on legal presumptions)
- Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Meade, 134 S.W.2d 960 (Ky. 1939) (longstanding caution against instructing juries on presumptions in civil cases)