754 S.E.2d 714
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Holland, by guardian, sues Morbark for injuries from a wood chipper; claims design defect, failure to warn, and related theories.
- Incident: June 1, 2006, Holland injured while opening a hood on a Morbark 58-inch chipper at A & K Mulch.
- Holland’s injury occurred after the hood contacted rotating fan blades due to a missing hood pin.
- Plaintiff amended complaint in 2009; dismissed other defendants; case remanded to state court and a discovery schedule set for Feb 2011.
- Holland sought two amendments (July 2010; January 2011); Morbark moved for summary judgment February 2011; circuit court denied second amendment but granted summary judgment June 2, 2011.
- Court denied Holland’s second amendment as prejudicial and late; design defect required a reasonable alternative design under Branham; warnings claim upheld and Morbark not liable for warnings due to prior warning decals and Holland’s knowledge of danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly denied the second motion to amend | Holland seeks to refine theories learned in discovery | Amendment would prejudice Morbark | Denied; amendment prejudicial and untimely |
| Whether Branham requires a reasonable alternative design and supports summary judgment on design defect | There was an OSHA brake defect theory and feasible design | No feasible alternative design proven; OSHA theory improper | Design defect claim insufficient; Branham required; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment on failure to warn is proper given warnings present and Holland’s knowledge | Warnings were inadequate to inform users | Warnings adequate; Holland knew danger; no duty to warn | Failure to warn claim affirmed; warnings and Holland’s knowledge foreclose liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010) (mandatory reasonable alternative design requirement in design defect cases)
- Miranda C. v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 402 S.C. 577, 741 S.E.2d 34 (Ct.App.2013) (retroactive application of Branham’s risk-utility approach)
- Holst v. KCI Konecranes Int'l Corp., 390 S.C. 29, 699 S.E.2d 715 (Ct.App.2010) (no feasible/feasible alternative design required for design defect)
- Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321 (Ct.App.1995) (plaintiff must show feasible alternative design and risk-utility analysis)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999) (limits on appellate review of design defect theories)
- Ball v. Canadian American Exp. Co., Inc., 314 S.C. 272, 442 S.E.2d 620 (Ct.App.1994) (prejudice analysis in amendments on new theories)