Despaux v. RSC Equip. Rental Inc.
246 So. 3d 806
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 22, 2009, a Terex AL4000 portable light tower boom fell and struck KBR employee Kenneth Despaux at a ConocoPhillips refinery; KBR had borrowed the tower from another contractor and it was leased from RSC.
- KBR crew had attempted to transport the tower after leaving it vertical but not fully telescoped; while preparing to tow, a crewmember operated the winch/pins and the boom collapsed, injuring Despaux.
- Plaintiff sued multiple parties including the tower manufacturer (Amida Industries, successor to Terex) and RSC; jury allocated fault (Despaux 5%, coworkers 55%, Amida 25%, RSC 15%) and awarded damages against Amida and RSC; Amida’s JNOV denied and it appealed.
- Prior to trial, plaintiff disclosed a 2013 incident at the same refinery involving the identical AL4000 model where the boom fell while lowering; the refinery subsequently prohibited single-winch towers and switched to two-winch models.
- Trial court admitted the 2013 incident report over Amida’s motions in limine, finding the subsequent incident substantially similar and admissible (including as a business record); evidence at trial included expert testimony about the single-winches, concealed cable, wallowed ratchet socket, and availability of a safer two-winch model.
- On appeal, Amida principally challenged (1) admission of the 2013 incident evidence and (2) sufficiency of evidence under the LPLA for reasonably anticipated use, defective design/construction, and proximate cause (seeking JNOV).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2013 incident evidence | 2013 incident involving same model at same refinery is relevant to show defect and risk | Subsequent-accident evidence is prejudicial and not sufficiently similar | Trial court did not abuse discretion; 2013 incident sufficiently similar and admissible (business‑records/hearsay exception applies) |
| Reasonably anticipated use (LPLA) | Use was ordinary (common practice to borrow equipment; crew qualified; no notice tower was broken) | Use was unforeseeable (borrowed by other contractors, untrained personnel, pins pulled, device broken) | Jury reasonably found use was reasonably anticipated; warnings being adequate did not negate liability for defect |
| Defective design/construction (LPLA) | AL4000 single‑winch design, concealed cable, wallowed ratchet, and available two‑winch alternative rendered product unreasonably dangerous | No proof manufacturer knew of defect; collapse due to user error (vertical pin pulled) or slack cable, not design flaw | Sufficient evidence supported jury finding of defective design/construction; reasonable inferences favor plaintiff |
| Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) | N/A (appealed by defendant seeking JNOV) | Evidence overwhelmingly favors Amida; no reasonable jury could find for plaintiff | Denial of JNOV was not manifestly erroneous; verdict stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. K‑Mart, 483 So.2d 609 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1985) (framework for admissibility of other‑accident evidence)
- Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of Louisiana, LLC, 221 So.3d 880 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2017) (standard for "reasonably anticipated use" under LPLA)
- Loconte Partners, LLC v. Montgomery & Assocs., Inc., 116 So.3d 904 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial of JNOV)
- Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 157 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (examples where violation of adequate warnings precluded reasonably anticipated use)
- Lockart v. Kobe Steel Ltd., 989 F.2d 864 (5th Cir. 1993) (use that directly contravened warnings not "reasonably anticipated")