Kirkbride v. Terex USA, LLC
798 F.3d 1343
10th Cir.2015Background
- In 1980 Terex's predecessor manufactured a portable jaw-crushing plant. A toggle plate inside the crusher is designed as a sacrificial "fuse" to break when uncrushable material enters the jaws, preventing stored-energy ejection.
- Harper Sand & Gravel acquired and modified the plant; by 2008 some safety placards and a crossmember had been removed. Harper ordered and installed a new Terex toggle plate two months before the accident.
- On August 2, 2008 a ripper tooth broke off and jammed the crusher; the toggle plate did not break. Kirkbride climbed into the crusher to cut the tooth; it violently ejected and struck him.
- Post-accident inspection (2011) found the toggle plate was 2 3/16" thick, exceeding Terex's 1 7/8"–2" design spec (i.e., about 3/16" too thick).
- Kirkbride sued Terex (diversity jurisdiction) on theories of failure to warn, manufacturing defect (toggle plate thickness), and breach of implied warranty of merchantability; the jury found Terex liable on all three and awarded > $3.5M. Terex moved for JMOL; district court denied. Tenth Circuit reviews and reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to warn causation | Terex's manuals lacked specific instructions for clearing jams; had Terex supplied them Harper would have trained workers and Kirkbride would have followed instructions, avoiding injury | Even assuming inadequate instructions, plaintiff did not read manuals; no evidence anyone on scene followed manuals or would have heeded an instruction — causation lacking | Reversed: failure-to-warn verdict vacated for lack of causation; heeding presumption rebutted by evidence that Kirkbride did not read manuals and lacked training evidence |
| Manufacturing-defect causation (toggle plate thickness) | The 3/16" excess thickness made the plate too hard to break and thus caused the jam-related ejection injury | Plaintiff offered no admissible evidence showing a properly manufactured plate would have broken under the same facts; expert did not test or opine that a nondefective plate would have broken | Reversed: insufficient evidence of causation; expert failed to rule out that a properly made plate would also have remained intact, so verdict rested on speculation |
| Implied warranty of merchantability | Breach of implied warranty based on toggle plate defect supports recovery independently | Utah law treats tort-based implied-warranty claims as coextensive with strict products-liability claims; if product-liability claims fail, implied-warranty adds nothing | Reversed: implied-warranty claim subsumed by strict products-liability standards; because product-liability claims fail, implied-warranty cannot sustain the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- House v. Armour of Am., Inc., 886 P.2d 542 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (manufacturer strictly liable for inadequate warnings that render product unreasonably dangerous)
- House v. Armour of Am., Inc., 929 P.2d 340 (Utah 1996) (heeding presumption and proximate-cause requirement for failure-to-warn claims)
- Schaerrer v. Stewart's Plaza Pharmacy, Inc., 79 P.3d 922 (Utah 2003) (elements of manufacturing-defect claim)
- Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel Co., 601 P.2d 152 (Utah 1979) (Utah adopts strict products-liability principles and treats implied-warranty action as essentially the same for tort purposes)
- Burns v. Cannondale Bicycle Co., 876 P.2d 415 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (plaintiff must show injury proximately resulted from product's defective performance)
- Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2004) (addressing admissibility of expert testimony)
- Truck Ins. Exch. v. MagneTek, Inc., 360 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) (jury causation cannot be based on speculation)