Jobie Howard v. Eaton Corporation
16-0055
| W. Va. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- On May 12, 2010, Jobie Howard (Arch Coal employee) worked inside an energized 480-volt Motor Control Center (MCC) built by Eaton and ordered to Robertson/Wesco for Arch; while tightening a bolt with uninsulated wrenches he caused an arc flash and was seriously burned.
- Robertson (electrical contractor) designed the mine distribution system and specified components; for this MCC Robertson specified a "main lug only" connection (no main breaker disconnect). Eaton built the MCC to those specifications.
- Two methods existed to de-energize the MCC: open a GOAB (gang-operated switch) or pull incoming fuses with an insulated "hot stick." Howard knew the unit was energized, was told to de-energize it, knew the hazards and warnings, but elected to work energized.
- Howard sued Eaton alleging strict liability/design defect (no shut-off switch, inadequate covers), failure to warn (no prominent warning that unit lacked a shut-off), and breach of implied warranty.
- The circuit court granted Eaton summary judgment; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact and several dispositive legal points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eaton violated mining/electrical regulations by not providing a shut-off switch on the MCC | Howard (via expert Spadaro): Eaton violated rules requiring equipment capable of quick deenergization | Eaton: Regulations cited do not apply to Eaton as manufacturer of custom equipment; no duty shown to add parts beyond contract specs | Court: No error — plaintiff failed to show regulations applied to Eaton; summary judgment proper |
| Who had responsibility to include a main breaker disconnect | Howard: Specs were silent so Eaton independently decided not to include a shut-off switch; Eaton was solely or concurrently negligent | Eaton: Robertson/Arch designed and specified MCC without breaker; Eaton manufactured per order and did not inspect or control site integration | Court: No error — evidence showed Robertson/Arch decided to omit a breaker; Eaton built per specifications; no genuine issue of fact |
| Failure-to-warn strict liability claim | Howard: Eaton should have warned that unit lacked a shut-off and that the available deenergizing methods were unreasonable | Eaton: Warnings and instruction manual were provided; Howard knew of hazards, saw labels, and ignored them; additional warnings would not have prevented injury | Court: No error — warnings existed, Howard admitted he failed to read them and did not show additional warnings would have changed outcome; not proximate cause |
| Admissibility/impact of post-accident remedial measures (installation of shut-off) | Howard: Post-accident installation of a shut-off by Robertson/Arch demonstrates defect/feasibility and should go to jury | Eaton: Remedial changes were made by Robertson/Arch to the distribution system, not by Eaton; issue not raised below and no Eaton remedial action shown | Court: Declined to consider on appeal because not raised below; even on merits, measures were by others and inadmissible to prove fault under Rule 407 |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (summary judgment standard)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (W. Va. 1963) (summary judgment inquiry guidance)
- Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W. Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (W. Va. 1992) (summary judgment standard application)
- Toth v. Bd. of Parks & Recreation Comm’rs, 215 W. Va. 51, 593 S.E.2d 576 (W. Va. 2003) (summary judgment appropriate when nonmoving party fails on essential element)
- Ilosky v. Michelin Tire Corp., 172 W. Va. 435, 307 S.E.2d 603 (W. Va. 1983) (failure-to-warn strict liability elements)
- Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W. Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (W. Va. 1979) (comparative negligence framework)
- Reager v. Anderson, 179 W. Va. 691, 371 S.E.2d 619 (W. Va. 1988) (jury role in apportionment except in clear undisputed cases)
- Whitlow v. Bd. of Educ. of Kanawha County, 190 W. Va. 223, 438 S.E.2d 15 (W. Va. 1993) (issues not raised below generally not considered on appeal)