Carson v. All Erection & Crane Rental Corp.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Kyle Carson, a crane oiler for White Construction, was crushed by the treads of a leased Manitowoc 2250 crawler crane and suffered an amputation when the crane unexpectedly moved while he stood on wood matting.
- ALL Erection & Crane Rental Corporation (ALL) leased the crane to White Construction; Carson sued ALL for negligence in Indiana state court; ALL removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Carson's negligence theory: ALL had a duty to perform a reasonable inspection on delivery, including testing the travel-detent (cruise-control) that intermittently re-engaged forward motion; ALL breached that duty by failing to discover the defect.
- Post-accident examinations by a White-hired inspector and an ALL mechanic found an intermittent solid-state electrical failure in the travel-detent circuitry that could be difficult to reproduce and often did not manifest during brief testing.
- The district court found a duty to inspect and a triable issue on breach but granted summary judgment for ALL because Carson offered no evidence that any pre-delivery inspection would likely have detected the intermittent defect or that ALL’s alleged breach proximately caused the injury. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALL breached a duty to inspect the travel-detent before delivery | ALL owed a duty to inspect and would have discovered the defect if it had looked, because the defect was found after the accident | The defect was intermittent and not reasonably discoverable by routine inspection; no recommendation to inspect that component existed | Duty to inspect existed, but failing to perform prolonged, post-accident-style testing is not necessarily a breach for routine delivery inspections (breach triable but limited) |
| Whether ALL’s alleged breach was a proximate cause of Carson’s injury | If ALL had tested the detent on delivery, it would have revealed the intermittent defect and prevented the accident | White used the crane for ~3 months; detent worked when used pre-accident; no evidence how often detent was used, so no basis to infer inspection would have revealed the defect | No evidence (or reasonable inference) that a delivery inspection would have detected the intermittent defect; proximate cause lacking, so summary judgment for ALL affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 849 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 2006) (supplier of chattel owes duty to conduct proper inspection to disclose defects)
- McGlothlin v. M & U Trucking, Inc., 688 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind. 1997) (reasonable discoverability is relevant to breach, not existence of duty)
- Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2009) (inferences based on mere speculation are insufficient at summary judgment)
- Foster v. New York Central System, 402 F.2d 312 (7th Cir. 1968) (affirming summary judgment where causation evidence permits multiple speculative conclusions)
- Buckner v. Sam’s Club, Inc., 75 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must present evidence of causation at summary judgment)
- Harris v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 102 F.3d 1429 (7th Cir. 1996) (when possibilities are evenly balanced, judgment for defendant warranted)
- Palace Bar, Inc. v. Feamot, 381 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. 1978) (defendant entitled to judgment when essential element lacks evidence)