Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Company v. Paul Johnson
109 N.E.3d 953
Ind.2018Background
- Campbell Hausfeld manufactured and sold the TL1120 mini air die grinder (the Grinder) without a safety guard; instructions warned to read manuals, wear safety glasses and ear protection, not to use cut-off disc mandrels without a safety guard, and to use attachments rated ≥25,000 RPM.
- Paul Johnson bought the Grinder, read the instructions, attached a cut-off disc on a mandrel rated below 25,000 RPM, did not use a guard, and wore only prescription glasses (not safety goggles).
- While cutting a truck headlight opening, the cut-off disc disintegrated and a fragment struck Johnson’s left face and eye, resulting in severe injury and loss of the eye.
- Johnson sued under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA) for defective design and failure to warn; Campbell Hausfeld moved for summary judgment asserting the IPLA defenses of misuse, alteration, and incurred risk and argued Johnson was ≥51% at fault.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Campbell Hausfeld on the design claim (found misuse and ≥51% fault) but denied summary judgment on failure-to-warn; the Court of Appeals reversed in part; the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed whether misuse is a complete defense under the IPLA and whether Campbell Hausfeld established it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misuse under the IPLA is a complete defense or subject to comparative-fault apportionment | Johnson: misuse should be treated as comparative fault, not a complete bar | Campbell Hausfeld: misuse is a statutory defense that operates as a complete bar when proven | Held: Misuse is a complete defense under the IPLA when proven (cause of harm and not reasonably expected by seller) |
| Whether Johnson’s conduct constituted misuse that caused his injuries | Johnson: he read instructions; believed prescription glasses sufficed; disputes causation and foreseeability | Campbell Hausfeld: Johnson failed to follow multiple instructions (no safety glasses, used cut-off disc without guard, used under-rated disc) and that failure caused his injuries | Held: Undisputed evidence shows Johnson’s multiple violations caused his injuries; causation established |
| Whether Campbell Hausfeld could reasonably foresee the specific misuse | Johnson: a factual dispute exists whether the manufacturer could foresee lack of safety glasses or other noncompliance | Campbell Hausfeld: while some single misuses might be foreseeable, the combination of three independent violations was not reasonably foreseeable | Held: Manufacturer could not reasonably expect the triple, independent disregard of warnings; misuse was unforeseeable |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on misuse | Johnson: misuse is typically a jury question; disputed facts preclude summary judgment | Campbell Hausfeld: undisputed facts show misuse as a matter of law | Held: Summary judgment appropriate because the undisputed record established unforeseeable misuse that caused the harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2003) (discusses interaction of misuse defense and comparative fault under the IPLA)
- Hubbard Mfg. Co. v. Greeson, 515 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1987) (held misuse can bar recovery as intervening cause)
- Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (affirmed misuse may be decided as a matter of law where plaintiff disobeyed clear warnings)
- Vaughn v. Daniels Co., 841 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. 2006) (incurred risk treated as a complete bar under the IPLA)
- Leon v. Caterpillar Indus., Inc., 69 F.3d 1326 (7th Cir. 1995) (manufacturer not required to foresee multiple independent regulatory violations by user; supports unforeseeability analysis)