Wanda Williams v. The Manitowoc Company, Inc.
898 F.3d 607
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- John Williams Jr., a certified operator of a Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane, was ejected and permanently injured when the crane tipped during a tandem lift and unsecured nine‑ton counterweights slid forward, striking the operator’s cab.
- Wanda Williams (John’s wife and conservator) sued Manitowoc under the Mississippi Products Liability Act alleging failure to warn, defective design (dismissed below), negligence, and loss of consortium.
- At trial the jury found Manitowoc failed to warn of the specific hazard that counterweights could slide forward and strike the cab, awarding damages; fault was apportioned 40% Manitowoc, 50% VT Halter, 10% John.
- Manitowoc moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial arguing (inter alia) that its warnings were adequate, John’s misuse caused the tip‑over, the proposed alternative warning would not have helped, the warnings expert was improperly qualified, prior‑accident evidence was improperly admitted, and certain character evidence was wrongly excluded.
- The district court denied Manitowoc’s post‑trial motions; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Manitowoc’s legal challenges and upholding evidentiary and Daubert rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of warnings under MPLA | Williams: Manual failed to warn that unsecured counterweights can slide forward and crush cab during a tip‑over. | Manitowoc: General tip‑over warnings and instructions to avoid tipping are adequate; compliance with standards/OSHA dispositive. | Jury reasonably found warning inadequate; court refused JMOL for Manitowoc. |
| Proximate cause — alternative warning would have helped | Williams: An alternative ("Singhose") warning would have given new info causing operators to exit cab and avoid injury. | Manitowoc: Alternative warning wouldn’t instruct safe avoidance; "jump and run" could be unsafe; John likely wouldn’t heed it. | Jury had sufficient basis to find an alternative warning could have averted injury; JMOL denied. |
| Misuse defense (proximate cause) | Williams: Evidence disputed misuse; jury instructed and apportioned fault but still liable. | Manitowoc: John overloaded, operated on slope, and used with malfunctioning aid — misuse that breaks causation. | Misuse was a jury question; evidence did not overwhelmingly favor Manitowoc; JMOL denied. |
| Expert qualification & evidentiary rulings | Williams: Dr. Singhose is a qualified mechanical/human‑factors/warnings expert; prior accidents evidence and exclusion of certain character evidence were proper. | Manitowoc: Singhose lacks specific warnings credentials for crawler cranes; prior‑accident evidence (Model 18000) dissimilar; should be allowed to elicit specific prior‑conduct testimony on direct. | District court did not abuse discretion: Singhose admissible; Model 18000 evidence properly admitted (or harmless); exclusion of the proffered direct character questions not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. Will‑Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004) (warning adequate where manufacturer specifically warned against the adverse effect at issue)
- Roman v. W. Mfg., Inc., 691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court has wide discretion to qualify experts; expertise need not be narrowly coterminous with subject)
- Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009) (Daubert standards are flexible; qualification and reliability are separate inquiries)
- Mine Safety Appliance Co. v. Holmes, 171 So. 3d 442 (Miss. 2015) (misuse can bar recovery when product altered from condition at sale and misuse is proximate cause)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (court must ensure expert testimony is both reliable and relevant)
- OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. T. Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2016) (review standards for JMOL and appellate deference to jury findings)