Evans v. Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc.
295 Va. 235
| Va. | 2018Background
- Jerry Wayne Evans, an uncertified lift-truck trainee, was asked to operate a Hyster S120XMS clamp lift truck during a short-staffed shift; after being pulled free from a gap, he parked the truck on a 12% incline, exited without chocking wheels or lowering the clamp, and was crushed when the truck rolled; post-accident exam showed the parking brake was out of adjustment.
- The truck used an operator-adjustable, over-center parking brake (dashboard lever with twist knob); about 60% of comparable trucks in 2003 used similar operator-adjustable brakes; the design complied with applicable ANSI/federal standards requiring the brake to hold on a 15% incline.
- Employer policy did not authorize operators to adjust the brake; operators were trained to tag vehicles for maintenance; some operators occasionally loosened the brake to reduce operator effort; operators were required to be certified by federal regulation, but Evans was not certified.
- Plaintiff (Evans’s widow) sued NACCO for negligent design and breach of implied warranty, presenting expert testimony that the operator-adjustable brake was defectively designed because foreseeable misuse (operators loosening the brake) could be prevented by a mechanic-adjust-only design.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on negligent design and awarded $4.2 million; the trial court set aside the verdict, holding contributory negligence as a matter of law; on appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed on the alternate ground that plaintiff’s evidence failed to prove a design defect as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the operator-adjustable, over-center parking brake was negligently designed (design defect) | The brake was defectively designed because allowing operator adjustability foreseeably permitted misuse (loosening) and a safer alternative (mechanic-only or tool-required adjustment) existed | The design complied with ANSI/federal standards, was widespread in the industry, allowed timely field adjustment (avoiding downtime), and no evidence showed the proposed alternative was safer overall | Held for defendant: plaintiff failed as a matter of law to prove the design was unreasonably dangerous because no evidence showed the proposed alternative would be safer overall than the challenged design |
| Whether the jury could infer defect from consumer expectations or industry norms | Plaintiff argued foreseeability of misuse and safety literature supported requiring passive, mechanical safeguards | Defendant argued conformity with standards and common industry practice rebutted defect and no evidence of contrary consumer expectation was offered | Held: conformity with standards and lack of objective proof of consumer expectations undermined plaintiff’s claim; subjective testimony from one operator was insufficient |
| Whether failure-to-warn theory could sustain liability given the jury instructions/form | Plaintiff contended jury instructions permitted a finding that warnings were inadequately designed and thus negligent | Defendant argued design and warning claims are distinct and the verdict form/instructions did not permit a finding for plaintiff on failure-to-warn | Held: jury rejected implied-warranty claim (which would cover inadequate warnings) and the record shows failure-to-warn was not the basis of the verdict; court declined to remand on warning theory |
| Whether contributory negligence should have been decided by the jury | Plaintiff argued contributory negligence was a factual question for the jury | Defendant argued contributory negligence was established as a matter of law | Court avoided this question by resolving case on design-defect insufficiency; contributory negligence ruling below was not reached on appeal because of alternate basis for affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Shively, 227 Va. 317 (imposes duty to exercise ordinary care in design)
- Perlin v. Chappell, 198 Va. 861 (defines negligence standard)
- Turner v. Manning, 216 Va. 245 (manufacturer’s duty to design reasonably safe product)
- Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 219 Va. 949 (elements for product unreasonably dangerous when sold)
- Morgen Indus., Inc. v. Vaughan, 252 Va. 60 (feasibility and effectiveness of safety modification required to prove design defect)
- Holiday Motor Corp. v. Walters, 292 Va. 461 (manufacturer must meet objective safety standards prevailing when product made)
- Redman v. John D. Brush & Co., 111 F.3d 1174 (reasonable consumer expectations standard)
- Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co., 993 F.2d 417 (published literature and industry practices as evidence of consumer expectations)
- Sexton v. Bell Helmets, Inc., 926 F.2d 331 (industry practice conformity not dispositive)
- Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co., 365 N.W.2d 176 (products liability aims to encourage overall safer designs)