Braswell v. Cincinnati Incorporated, 731 F.3d 1081

Braswell suffered a crushing injury to his right arm operating a Cincinnati hydraulic press brake; amputation followed.
The press brake had warnings and safety features, but many were removed or disabled by subsequent owners.
Ventaire purchased the machine in 2007; Cincinnati serviced it previously, including software updates.
Original design included gated footswitches and dual palm stations to prevent activation with hands in the die area; later mods removed these protections.
Warnings on the machine and in the manual advised not to place hands in the die area and to use blocks when necessary; blocks were supposed to prevent ram descent.
Braswell argued that post-sale modifications and removal of safety features rendered the product unreasonably dangerous; Cincinnati moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the press brake was unreasonably dangerous under Oklahoma law	Braswell argues design defects and unsafe modifications.	Cincinnati contends warnings and safety features kept the product safe.	No genuine issue; machine not unreasonably dangerous under consumer expectations test.
Whether modifications break the link to defect at manufacture or are foreseeable supervening causes	Modifications to remove guards make the product defective.	Foreseeability limits liability; modifications may sever proximate cause if unforeseen.	Foreseeability limits liability; no liability due to foreseeable post-sale alterations.
Whether Braswell preserved a distinct negligence claim separate from product liability	Negligence based on technician’s service visit alleged.	Claim not properly pleaded or preserved; subsumed under product liability or waived.	Braswell waived/failed to preserve negligence arguments; no review.

Kirkland v. Gen. Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) (elements of Oklahoma products-liability claim; consumer expectations test)
McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2008) (warnings can render product not unreasonably dangerous)
Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1988) (dangerousness judged by ordinary consumer knowledge)
Hutchins v. Silicone Specialities, Inc., 881 P.2d 64 (Okla. 1993) (warnings adequate can negate defectiveness)
Treadway v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 766 P.2d 938 (Okla. 1988) (warnings and consumer expectations analysis)
Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2003) (diversity context; Oklahoma substantive law applied)