751 F. Supp. 2d 298
D. Mass.2010Background
- Brown sues Husky for a manufacturing defect in a 1525 series 3350 injection molding machine sold to Comet in 1974.
- Brown alleges Husky failed to attach a Front Pulley Guard during assembly, which would have prevented his injury.
- Brown was injured September 6, 2006 when his hand was crushed while cleaning the machine.
- Comet rebuilt the 3350 in 2000, refurbishing largely the same machine but with a new control panel; the frame remained.
- Husky moves for summary judgment, arguing Brown cannot show the 3350 lacked a Front Pulley Guard at delivery and thus cannot prove a manufacturing defect.
- The court must determine whether there is genuine issue of material fact on causation and the absence/presence of the Front Pulley Guard at relevant times.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a manufacturing defect causally linked to Brown's injury? | Brown | Husky | Husky |
| Did Brown need to negate post-sale mishandling to prove defect causation? | Brown | Husky | Husky |
| Is there a genuine dispute about whether the Front Pulley Guard was present at delivery? | Brown | Husky | Husky |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Bereault, 348 Mass. 502 (Mass. 1965) (burden to show lack of mishandling by intermediaries for post-delivery injury)
- Price v. Gen. Motors Corp., 931 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1991) (burden to prove defect caused injury by preponderance)
- Corsetti v. Stone Co., 396 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1985) (must show defect existed when product left manufacturer)
- Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 389 Mass. 47 (Mass. 1983) (proof of causation requires a greater likelihood of defendant's fault)
- Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620 (Mass. 1978) (design vs. manufacturing defect distinctions; burden on plaintiff to negate post-sale mishandling)
- Kenney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 355 Mass. 604 (Mass. 1969) (plaintiff must eliminate possibility of post-sale mishandling)