Rardon v. Holland, Lp
Civil Action No. 2016-0539
| D.D.C. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- On Oct. 6, 2013 WMATA contracted Plasser to build a Prime Mover for underground rail maintenance; WMATA supplied detailed specifications including the exact hydraulic hose type and a requirement for a hydraulic failsafe circuit.
- Plasser built the Prime Mover according to WMATA’s specs, relocating hose reels only after WMATA-approved suggestion to move them to the right-rear of the machine.
- Holland provided and operated the Flash-Butt welding head mounted on the Prime Mover; WMATA and Holland crews worked together to weld, shear upset, cool, and finish-grind rails.
- During the shift, hot sheared upset punctured a hydraulic hose (Parflex) run along the tunnel wall, aerosolizing hydraulic fluid which ignited and caused an explosion; Rardon was injured when a suspended rail later fell.
- Rardon sued Plasser for negligence, and strict liability for design defect and failure to warn, arguing the Prime Mover should have had hose protection, an automatic fail-to-safe on puncture, and warnings; Plasser moved for summary judgment.
- The court found undisputed evidence that WMATA drafted the detailed specifications and maintained control; Plasser followed the specs; plaintiff’s expert opinions lacked foundational review of the full contract and systems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plasser had a duty to go beyond WMATA’s specifications (contractor‑specification defense) | Rardon: Plasser negligently designed Prime Mover and should have added protections (sleeves, automatic hose shutoffs, warnings) | Plasser: Built exactly to WMATA’s detailed specs for a sophisticated customer; not liable absent obvious defect | Court: Adopted contractor‑specification defense; Plasser not liable for following detailed specs unless defect was obviously dangerous; summary judgment for Plasser |
| Whether Prime Mover had an "obvious" defect excusing the contractor defense | Rardon: Prime Mover lacked protective sleeve/failsafe and warnings, making it defective | Plasser: No obvious defect; hoses and failsafe met specs and were appropriate if maintained/used as intended | Court: No evidence of an obvious defect; plaintiff’s expert did not establish an obvious danger; exception not triggered |
| Whether plaintiff’s expert testimony created a triable issue | Rardon: Expert Paulsen said protective sleeve and automatic shutoff were required | Plasser: Expert lacked foundation — did not review full contract/specs or inspect all relevant systems; opinions were conclusory | Court: Excluded expert as insufficient to create genuine issue; expert failed to show the Prime Mover violated specs or that defect was obvious |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine dispute test)
- Turner v. American Motors Gen. Corp., 392 A.2d 1005 (D.C. 1978) (manufacturer compliance with specs and regs not dispositive where specs are not detailed safety plan)
- Housand v. Bra‑Con Indus., Inc., 751 F. Supp. 541 (D. Md. 1990) (applying contractor‑specification defense; manufacturer who follows purchaser’s design sheltered absent obvious danger)
- Spangler v. Kranco, Inc., 481 F.2d 373 (4th Cir. 1973) (manufacturer not liable when product made to purchaser’s plans unless plans are obviously dangerous)
- Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 656 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (majority view that fabricator following purchaser’s design is not liable in negligence/strict liability absent obvious defect)