903 F. Supp. 2d 1350
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Hernandez sustained a severe hand injury while cleaning debris under a CFD 1217 hand-fed brush chipper with the safety guard removed.
- The guard covering the in-feed roller was bolted on; on the day of the accident the guard was not in place.
- Hernandez had 11 years with Asplundh and four years of wood chipper experience; he knew debris falling indicated guard absence, yet he continued the task.
- Asplundh demo'ed the unit prior to purchase; during demos the chipper jammed due to debris accumulating between the in-feed roller and guard, prompting ongoing maintenance.
- AEP designed, manufactured, and distributed the CFD 1217; Altec Industries is a separate district entity and did not participate in design or manufacture; AEP produced the operator and maintenance manuals with input from its engineers.
- Montello (Altec, not AEP) handled field maintenance; there is a factual dispute whether he directed removal of the lower guard, creating a basis for Count XIV against Altec Industries and negating some AEP liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Altec Industries bears liability for design/warning roles | Altec and AEP are distinct entities; Altec contributed to safety design/warnings. | Altec Industries is a separate entity from AEP and was not involved in design, manufacturing, or distribution of the chipper. | Altec Industries liable only for Count XIV; counts VIII–XIII dismissed. |
| Whether AEP is strictly liable for design defects | Design defect made the chipper unreasonably dangerous; a safer alternative design existed. | Chipper was reasonably safe with guard in place; removal of guard does not render it unreasonably dangerous. | Summary judgment for AEP on Count II; no unreasonably dangerous design. |
| Whether AEP is negligent for design defects | Failure to show a defective design supports negligence claim. | No evidence of defective design; product was safe as designed. | Summary judgment for AEP on Count V; no negligent design. |
| Whether AEP bears liability for warnings and instructions | AEP failed to warn about dangers of operating without the guard. | No duty to warn about an obvious danger absent unique risk. | Summary judgment for counts III and VI; no duty to warn of obvious danger. |
| Whether maintenance/instructions claims against AEP and Altec raise triable issues | Montello allegedly instructed removal of the guard during maintenance. | Conflicting testimony about who instructed removal; Montello worked for Altec, not AEP. | Summary judgment for AEP on Count VII; trial on Count XIV against Altec Industries; Montello's testimony creates factual dispute for XIV. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment, Div. of Fuqua Industries, Inc., 806 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir.1987) (feasibility of alternative design is one factor in unreasonableness)
- High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 610 So.2d 1259 (Fla.1993) (intended use limits strict liability; foreseeability alone not enough)
- Jennings v. BIC Corp., 181 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.1999) (intended use requirement for strict liability)
- Knox v. Delta Intern. Machinery Corp., 554 So.2d 6 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989) (no duty to provide all safety devices; safeguard detachable but not inherently dangerous)
- Edic ex rel. Edic v. Century Products Co., 364 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2004) (no defect if product not defectively designed)
- Veliz v. Rental Service Corp. USA, Inc., 313 F.Supp.2d 1317 (M.D.Fla.2003) (danger warnings analysis and duty to warn)
- West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976) (manufacturer not insurer of all injuries; duty not to create incomplete safeguards)
- Hue, Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir.2010) (summary judgment standards alignment with other jurisdictions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting in summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts and genuine disputes for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof)