Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company v. Paul Johnson
90 N.E.3d 1205
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Johnson bought a Campbell Hausfeld mini air die grinder (TL1120) sold without a safety guard and with instructions that listed uses (grinding, polishing, deburring) and some warnings (including to "wear safety glasses" and to use accessories rated ≥25,000 RPM). Instruction 15 stated: “Do not use a cut-off disc mandrel on this tool unless a safety guard is in place.”
- The Grinder was marketed without a guard because a permanently affixed guard would impair use in tight spaces; accessories (sold separately) attach via a removable mandrel.
- In August 2012 Johnson used a cut-off disc on the Grinder in a tight space; the disc failed, struck his face, and he lost an eye. Johnson wore prescription glasses (he believed they were safety glasses).
- Johnson sued under the Indiana Products Liability Act alleging defective design (no guard/insufficient means to obtain one) and failure to warn about using cut-off discs without a guard. Campbell Hausfeld moved for summary judgment asserting misuse, alteration, and incurred risk defenses and arguing Johnson was >51% at fault.
- The trial court granted summary judgment only on the defective design claim (finding misuse as a matter of law for not wearing safety glasses) but denied summary judgment on failure-to-warn; the court certified the order for interlocutory appeal.
- On appeal the court analyzed the statutory defenses and warnings evidence, found genuine issues of material fact on misuse, alteration, and incurred risk defenses and on adequacy of warnings, reversed the grant of summary judgment on design defect, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell Hausfeld) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s failure to wear safety glasses is misuse that bars recovery | Johnson contends his prescription glasses (which he thought contained safety glass) and the instruction ambiguity create fact issues; misuse should be allocated under comparative fault | Campbell Hausfeld contends failure to wear safety glasses violated explicit warnings and constitutes misuse precluding liability | Court: Not misuse as a matter of law; foreseeability and comparative-fault allocation create factual issues for jury |
| Whether using a cut-off disc without a guard is unforeseeable misuse or foreseeable use implicating manufacturer fault | Johnson argues Grinder instructions implied cut-off use but gave no guard or sufficient warning, so manufacturer fault exists | Campbell Hausfeld argues instruction forbade use without a guard and user disregarded it, constituting misuse | Court: Use was foreseeable; absence of guard and inadequate warning create genuine issues for trial |
| Whether attaching/using a disc with lower RPM rating constitutes misuse/causal fault | Johnson presents expert evidence that the disc’s lower rating likely was not a cause because the tool ran below rated speed | Campbell Hausfeld says running an under‑rated disc violated tool markings and contributed to injury | Court: Disputed causation — factual issue for jury; not misuse as matter of law |
| Whether incurred risk or alteration defenses entitle defendant to summary judgment | Johnson contends he lacked actual knowledge of the specific risk and the Grinder was not substantially altered; warnings insufficient | Campbell Hausfeld argues Johnson knew the risk and modified tool use by attaching disc mandrel | Court: Neither incurred risk nor alteration resolved as matter of law; factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Fueger v. Case Corp., 886 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (expert qualifications and cross-examination weigh on credibility at trial)
- Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (foreseeable use/misuse is typically a jury question)
- Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011) (allocation of fault is for jury unless only one conclusion is possible)
- Baker v. Heye-Am., 799 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (procedural limits on appellate review of designated evidence)
- Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (incurred risk may apply where plaintiff had actual knowledge of specific danger and disregarded express warnings)
- Meyers v. Furrow Bldg. Materials, 659 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (incurred risk requires actual knowledge of the specific risk)
- Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspaper of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994) (moving party must affirmatively show absence of genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)