*1 BUONANNO, Americo C. III
v. CO., al.
COLMAR INC. et BELTING 98-21-Appeal.
No.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
July 1999. *2 his arm injuries for received when
gence, convey- nip point1 was crushed in complaint, Buonan- system. In his or-belt conveyor-belt system alleged defectively de- and the were defendants, Power by the Emerson signed (EPT) and Col- Corporation Transmission (Colmar), Inc. and Belting Company, mar Colmar failed to warn that both EPT and wing condition of the dangerous granted summary The trial pulley. and Colmar on the for EPT' theory liability and the issue on Buonanno now this negligence. appeals judgment. History
Facts and Procedural 30, 1993, September On Buonanno was England De- employed by Ecological New (NEED), recycling velopment, Inc. Johnston, Rhode transfer station located con- Island. The consisted of several plant transport veyor belts used demolition materials, several catwalks on and Klein, DiDonato, Howard B. M. Donna stand, through sort de- employees would Providence, for Plaintiff. material, drop and the debris onto molition Bruno, McKeon, R. John Thomas Port- conveyor belts. the floor located below land, ME, Walker, IA, Newton, Lee M. working Although had been Buonanno Timothy A. Robenhymer, J. James Ruggi- plant approximately at the for two Providence, eri, Defendant, for months, held position one-half he Belting Co. injury, time “supervisor.” At the of his Richardson, Portland, ME, Harrison for his working Buonanno at NEED in was Defendant, Emerson Power Transmission. supervisory position he observed Defendant, Harsch, J. for William Louis running conveyor belts one of the Vinagro. L. identify track. an effort off turned problem, source of the Buonanno
Joseph Kelly, Bengtson, C. Russell A. climbed onto a catwalk off machine and Providence, defendants, Kenneth But- if the belt was obstructed. to determine ler et al. catwalk, he some- remained While C.J., WEISBERGER, Present machine, and Buonanno one restarted the LEDERBERG, FLANDERS, free from debris for began clearing path BOURCIER, GOLDBERG, JJ. eventually repair individual who lost his the belt. He soon balance and OPINION arm began tragically when his fall GOLDBERG, Justice. point” pulled “nip accident, his Buonanno, result of plaintiff, The Americo C. III As a (Buonanno), severely dominant arm was crushed brought products liability right elbow. amputated case on theories strict at the negli- subsequently "nip point” prevents 1. A is created where the waste materials stationary portion getting caught belt moves over the from between the roller and conveyor-belt system, "wing pulley.” or the belt. emotionally also suffers and has amined the NEED facility and indicated
been unable to return to the work unguarded force nip point presented a since the date of this accident. danger to employees and that OSHA had issued a guards should be Colmar is a distributor conveyor-belt installed at all points.4 While Buonan- system parts most, which apparently sold *3 no argues that it was the absence of the all, if not of the component parts of the guard and the failure to warn of the dan- conveyor Colmar, system to NEED. how- ger defective, rendered the ever, maintains that it was not in the busi- both EPT and Colmar maintain that due to ness of designing any way or in building the unique conveyor nature of the system, conveyor systems. The record reveals provide was not feasible to a shield with that the conveyor belt that caused Buonan- wing pulley, since shields typical- were no’s was purchased and constructed ly custom-made the welder who con- to transport rubbish inside the NEED structed conveyor system. plant. determined, Once this purpose was a representative of NEED contacted John Buonanno filed an amended complaint (Brunaccini), Brunaccini the president of against EPT and alleged which Colmar, and informed him of speed strict liability and negligence with respect which NEED intended to run the convey- of wing pulley and failure or, the width of the pulley, and the type of to warn of its dangerous nature. EPT motor required.2 wing pulley, which filed a motion summary for judgment set- is a component part nip of the point of the ting forth the following ground: as a man- system, was manufactured ufacturer of a component part, EPT had by EPT and sold to NEED Colmar. It duty no proper insure the design of the is significant that Colmar neither sold nor final integrated product. Subsequently, recommended the use of a protective joined in EPT’s motion for sum- (hereinafter shield shield or guard) to mary judgment addition, and in stated that guard the nip point. Moreover, Colmar Colmar did not any compo- manufacture did not any type sell guard for these nent part, nor did it design any aspect of pulleys because it maintains that such a belt. During summary guard is usually custom-made a welder judgment 14, hearing held on November who then installs it on 1997, prod- finished again EPT argued that as a manu- (Butler)3 uct. Kenneth Butler was the facturer a component part, EPT had no welder who was hired to actually duty construct against any to warn injuries caused the conveyor-belt apparatus after the own- by the final integrated product since it had er of NEED contacted him with the con- no involvement the design with of the en- ceptual plan of system. final, NEED’S system. tire during Also this hearing, Col- integrated conveyor-belt system contained mar indicated that it “would have the same area, shield over the point [EPT],” notwith- defenses as argued that Col- standing the fact that an unguarded nip mar had no involvement in point was generally known to be a hazard- manufacture fact, of the and in had aspect ous of the Apparently, on never even handled the product, since the 3, 1993, September approximately three wing pulley was shipped directly from incident, prior weeks to this an inspector words, EPT to NEED. In other EPT and from the United States Occupational Safe- Colmar maintained that they had “no (OSHA) ty and Health Administration ex- duty” seller, as a component part Butler, 2. Brunaccini exactly could not 4.According remember although OSHA re- NEED; employee contacted him installed, from guards quired to be NEED had not to the best his recollection it Perry. was Bill installed them as of the date of Buonanno’s injury. case, 3. Butler is also a defendant in this how- ever, party he appeal. is not a to this
715
evaluating
de-
trial
challenge
applied
the existence of a
failed
Further,
Textron,
Casualty
to the
v. Aetna
responded
Inc.
fect.
motion.”
(R.I.
537,
Co.,
summary judgment by arguing
for
A.2d
Surety
motion
Mills,
Inc. v.
1994);
in favor
existence
see also Holliston
(R.I.
Although
EPT
Colmar.
part of
604 A.2d
Trust
Citizens
1992).
either
grounds
raised
defendant
pleadings
examine
‘We
the.
judgment,
summary
pre-
Buonanno also
to the
most favorable
light
affidavits
sented record evidence
there was
whether an is
nonmoving party to decide
safer alternative
and whether
sue of material fact exist[s]
that could have reduced
foreseeable
entitled to
moving party
[is]
posed by
product,
risk of harm
thus
Textron,
as a matter of law.”
“
rendering
likely
it less
user would Inc.,
Moreover,
*4
of EPT noted Analysis law EPT presented case Colmar and the that supported argument a manufac- ruling motions for When on defendants’ is component part turer or distributor of judgment, justice the fo- summary trial liable for caused injury not the final question predominantly cused product. Moor v. Manu- Iowa of a and found that “there existence defect (S.D.1982). facturing 320 N.W.2d of- has been no evidence which has been determination, making jus- his the trial that, plaintiff the to fered establish considering holding tice indicated that the time that the left Emer- the Moor, required pro- to was, that it in- manufacturing plant, son’s that competent duce evidence a defect ex- deed, negli- defective.” On the issue of wing isted in the at the time it left pulley the trial refused to conclude gence, manufacturer, the control of the which these plaintiff proven that “the has that product unreasonably rendered the unsafe. mat- duty to defendants owed a justice ultimately id. at 928. See The trial injury that ter such it would cause found that Buonanno had failed to demon- Therefore, plaintiff.” occurred to the strate the time existence of a defect at the summary motions for granted he “the manufacturing left EPT’s Emerson judgment [defendants plant question and overlooked the of a of negligence.” Colmar on the issue upon availability defect based of a saf- however, hearing, At the time of the Moreover, regard- er alternative design. recently justice did not consider the trial claim, ing negligence he found that (Third) Restatement Torts enacted EPT and prove Buonanno failed to component issue very addresses duty Colmar owed a (Third) liability. See part “such that it would not cause (1998). § 5 Since the advent of Torts He plaintiff.” occurred to Restatement, we have recently published and EPT’s granted then both Colmar’s the liabili- not had the occasion address motion for and Buo- of a of the manufacturer ty appealed. nanno and we product, final defective Upon do so considering opportunity now. appeal “When an take Restatement, conclude considering we grant summary judgment, this [C]ourt preliminary case not on a the same and rules that turns employs standard defect, determination of the existence of a seller in certain situations. Supply Union but rather on whether EPT or Pust, 162, Co. v. 196 Colo. 583 P.2d the manufacturer and distributor of (1978). a com- terms, By very its the Re- ponent part, has relative to the provides statement exception to the integrated machine. Section 5 of the Re- general rule that a seller or distributor is statement entitled “Liability of Commer- subject when “the seller or dis- cial Seller or Distributor of Product Com- tributor of the component substantially ponents for Harm Caused by Products participates of the com- Into Components Which Integrated,” Are ponent into the product.” reads as follows: 5(b)(1)-(em- Torts engaged
“One added). the business of sell- phasis ing or otherwise distributing product preliminary matter, As a we sum components who sells or distributes a marily reject Colmar’s argument that be subject to liability for cause it did not manufacture the wing harm persons or property caused merely NEED, sold it to it is product into which is in- immune from liability. A simple review of tegrated if: the Restatement indicates otherwise.5 (a) the component is in it- defective Moreover, applying *5 reasoning, similar we self, as defined in Chapter, and the reject EPT’s and argument Colmar’s harm; defect causes the or because they merely are manufacturers or (b) (1) the seller or distributor of the distributors of component parts, they are component substantially participates in immune from liability. adopt We the Re the integration the component into of statement’s conclusion that the manufac the design product; turer or seller of a component part may be (2) the integration of the component user, liable to the ultimate particularly causes the product defective, to be as when it has substantially participated in defined in Chapter; the integration of the component into the (3) the defect in the product causes design of the final product. Restatement (Third) the harm.” Restatement Torts (Third) § Torts 5. added). § 5 at 130 (emphases rule, general The record contains component following man
As ufacturers or sellers facts should not relevant to be liable the issue of “substantial under this section participation” unless the an element of the' Re part itself was defective when it statement: left the Colmar supplied the compo (Third) manufacturer. Restatement nent parts Torts of the conveyor system belt § Furthermore, 5 cmt. a. NEED. The constructed part supplier Butler, should not be required to act welding contractor retained as an any insurer for NEED, and all accidents that who indicated that he “would call ** * may arise after that component part leaves and tell them [Colmar] long how the supplier’s hands. See v. conveyor would be I would be build [that] Crossfield * * * Quality Control Equipment ing, F.3d how fast I go, wanted it to (8th Cir.1993). stands representative [a would Colmar] come Crossfield for the proposition that primary duty up with a formula” as to what was needed owed the designer machine, of the Brunaccini, to construct conveyor. not the supplier of the component parts. Colmar sale representative, maintained However, See id. liability can be extended that NEED “knew [component parts] what to a wanted,” manufacturer they but it option was Colmar’s and/or (Third) (1998) 5. § impos- components" Torts 5 prerequisite contains liability es "engaged on those in the business product. defendant manufactured the selling distributing or otherwise alternative, In the the Restatement also as to which manufacturers Colmar that a manufacturer of a addition, provides compo- In the trial ob- utilize. if part may subject liability nent be supplied compo- served that Colmar “substantially participates manufacturer in NEED, and that parts nent Colmar integration” ultimately of an defective particular prod- the “one selected the who (Third) product. Torts Moreover, there in suggestion is a uct[s].” 5(b)(1). above, § As indicated we deter- conveyor the record that this particular mined that there is no evidence in the belt is but one of a series of belts devel- suggest participated record to that EPT oped through the collaborative efforts of into the NEED and period Colmar over a of time. conveyor system, belt therefore EPT is not conclude, Accordingly, may a fact finder subject theory. under this relationship, from the nature of this However, we are persuaded genu- that a participated design of this may ine issue of material fact exist with conclusion, facts, product. these albeit pulley’s whether the design was record, may from a limited create a rea- defective as a result of EPT’s failure to sonable inference that Colmar “substan- produce a reasonable alternative tially participated” have reduced or avoided the system, belt thereby creating a foreseeable risk of harm suffered Buo- issue material fact. On the nanno, which would render the product contrary, however, there is not a scintilla defective “in “at sale itself’ and the time of suggest evidence to that EPT had Specifically, distribution.” the Restate- NEED, relationship with nor is there evi- 2(b) provides ment Torts dence that EPT participated in the con- product is defective when: struction or *6 posed “the foreseeable risks of harm addition, system. we decline to adopt or product could have been reduced position urged by Buonanno that a avoided of a reasonable adoption genuine issue of material may fact exist on or other design by alternative the seller question wing pulley whether distributor, or in the com- predecessor a was defective virtue of EPT’s failure distribution, mercial chain of include a when it shipped the ren- design omission of the alternative pulley to NEED. The impos- reasonably ders the not safe.” es on a component part manufac- actually liti- Although this issue was only turer if “the is defective in the record is clear gated by parties, itself,” which is to be determined “at the that a produced evidence that Buonanno distribution,” time of sale or was available. design pulley safer added), §§ (emphasis Tarts John Bru- deposition, in his Specifically, rather than the it point which is inte- testified that naccini, president, Colmar’s grated with other parts. (for other customers EPT manufactured Here, it undisputed is point “made-to-order-basis”), a on a only is created the belt when meets the circum- around the that had steel welded wing pulley after the entire conveyor belt that it manufac- wings, ference of system is assembled. There was no evi- same time that design at the tured this dence presented suggest single, that a Bru- question. in pulley manufactured isolated wing pulley presents danger. a a there was indicated naccini also Therefore, is not defective “spiral wing pulley” as a known “in itself’ or “at around pieces the time of sale or distri- wound circular had bution,” “the whole cover potential creates the fchat would pulley satisfied we are Accordingly, conveyor- thing.” as to fact exists of material issue belt (cid:127) whether this was a reasonable alternative balance while clearing path free from meaning within the of the Restate- debris on the belt. so, ment. If the question remains as to it left When the manufacturer the pulley whether the foreseeable risks of harm was a harmless that could have posed plaintiff could have been reduced in assembly been used and construc- or avoided had the alternative design been tion a conveyor with appro- available and offered to recog- NEED. We priate precautions safeguard the nip nize that it not have been economical- point. EPT should not be chargeable with ly feasible for EPT to manufacture a wing anticipating any that NEED or other so- pulley with this additional guarding for phisticated assembler-purchaser would uti- this particular use and such factor would lize this in such a fashion as to significantly bear upon the reasonableness nip point. create hazardous pointed As of this alternative design. These determi- Butler, out Kenneth NEED’S welder in nations, however, are to be determined deposition, his it was the responsibility fact finder and are not suitable for sum- (NEED’S officer) Vinagro mary judgment. principal or working someone for him to provide ap- WEISBERGER, Chief noting Justice propriate guards compliance with OSHA that all members the Court concur with requirements. wings Goldberg’s opinion Justice vacating the were open-ended designed and were summary judgment to Colmar pulley. allow debris to fall out of the Belting delivering Inc. but majority presented by There depo- evidence opinion affirming summary judgment sition, affidavit, otherwise, pul- that this entered in EPT. In opinion favor of ley in any way dangerous until com- EPT, relating to Chief Justice bined with the belt to create an WEISBERGER joined by Justices unguarded nip point. LEDERBERG and BOURCIER. are of opinion We that in the ab areWe of the opinion that EPT evidence, any sence of such it would be was entitled to summary judgment. We speculative to EPT might infer that have agree with Justice Goldberg’s candid state “may formulated an alternative ment that “there is not a scintilla of evi have reduced or avoided the foreseeable dence to suggest that EPT had rela *7 plaintiff. regard risk of harm” to the We tionship with England [New Ecological speculation insufficient to form as the (NEED), Development Company] nor that genuine basis for a issue of material fact. EPT participated in the construction or agree We that this Court must examine design of the system.”. belt She pleadings light the and affidavits in the then observed that she declined adopt to a nonmoving party most favorable to the to position that genuine a issue of material genuine decide whether a issue material fact may exist on question the of whether Textron, fact exists. Inc. v. Aetna Casual the wing pulley was defective by virtue of (R.I. 537, A.2d 539 ty Surety 638 EPT’s failure to include a warning when it 1994). rule are in com With this we all shipped pulley the plaintiff. the We agree upon To an holdings plete agreement. speculate with these contained in Jus tice Goldberg’s opinion, and, design might that have been therefore, alternative we note that operate way able to a as to reduce such unrea pot sonably dangerous when plaintiff, the harm to the when the shipped from EPT’s manufacturing facility. conveyor-belt incorporated It into the only be came dangerous when incorporated proce of the into be a violation the conveyor belt system. time, At agree dural rule which must be a we all nip point was created into grant which'.the arm followed when of a reviewing of the plaintiff was drawn when lost his motion for It is the summary judgment. h^ the time of sale or or ‘at to raise defective ‘in itself plaintiff burden of the a Kowal, potential only fact. v. creates Ludwig issue of material distribution’ but (R.I.1980).. 297, As Jus- into the convey- 419 A.2d 301-02 for injury admits, Goldberg candidly tice this issue system.” or-belt actually litigated by parties. was not light and in Under these circumstances She did cite the of John Brunac- deposition (Third) of the terms of the cini, employee that EPT 5, is no basis to § we believe there Torts on a manufactured for other customers any issue of mate- that there was conclude wing pulley a “made-to-order-basis” an alternative justify rial fact could had steel welded around the circumference design theory. Brunaccini also indicated wings. of the a spiral that there was a known as concurring opinion Addressing the pieces that had circular within which contends of Justice Flanders that would cover the whole warn, concept reject duty there was a component. and Justice by majority ed both the duty to believe that no such Goldberg, we unwilling place upon are We our case law or required by prior warn is manufacturer under the doctrine of strict component part A by the Restatement. liability obligation manufacturing be re as EPT should not supplier ordered such component part, sophisti and all quired to act as insurer containing safeguards cated purchaser, compo after that pur may that have not accidents that arise been ordered hands. unnecessary safeguard supplier’s are nent part chaser and leaves assembly dangerous Quality Equipment the ultimate unless a v. Control Crossfield Co., (8th Cir.1993). purchaser-as condition is created We F.3d sembler itself. proposi for the hold that this case stands is owed primary tion that the requirement The central 5 of the machine and not designer of the assembled (1998) is that Torts in the component parts of the supplier the manufacturer or seller in the participation absence of substantial subject for harm to into the de integration of only if the persons property sign product. (1) is defective in or: if the seller or itself substantially distributor of the component cannot and should not Since EPT participates integration in the of the com- every anticipation of responsible be for the and; ponent product be utilized conceivable (2) the integration component causes sophisticated assembler to be defective. duty to it should have no system, Since it is that this manufac- undisputed warn, to conditions particularly participate turer did not prod the final are created after *8 that of into the the the of Monex, An Inc. v. uct is assembled. See further, there is no product, and Nunes, Inc., A.2d thony A. that the was not defective dispute product (R.I.1990). EPT, by when the alternative de- shipped should not create sign concept Conclusion it become relevant in the when would forth the reasons set Consequently, the for guard event that NEED failed plaintiffs the design. Goldberg’s opinion, the ultimate As in Justice point created the respect grant- in wisely out “there is sustained Goldberg points appeal Justice Col- in favor of summary judgment that of presented suggest ing was no evidence Co., Summary judgment Inc. presents Belting a mar single, wing pulley a isolated Therefore, plain- vacated. The is not in favor of Colmar is danger. tiffs appeal respect is denied in unreasonably dangerous use in- creates tegration. granting summary judgment of in favor of summary EPT. The judgment in of favor (Third) Torts Under the Restatement hereby if, EPT is affirmed. (1998), The in defective papers a is component part things, it contains: among case be other Superior remanded to the warnings or “inadequate instructions Court for further in proceedings respect to of harm the foreseeable risks the plaintiffs complaint against Colmar could have been posed by product Belting Inc. provision reduced or avoided warnings or instructions reasonable FLANDERS, Justice, concurring in distributor, or a pre- other the seller or dissenting part. in dis- chain of decessor in the commercial in- tribution, and the omission I concur with to the Court’s warnings renders or structions reversal con- 2(c) reasonably safe.” Id. not I cerning respectfully dissent at 14. from majority’s opinion affirming the Here, summary-judg- in its EPT claimed summary judgment in favor of EPT for pur- typically provides that it ment motion the same reasons indicated in Justice with three type chasers of this Goldberg’s opinion, so, albeit I part, do in they that warnings indicating different on somewhat different and additional First, it argued guarding. should install grounds. argument us, oral At before Gorp Drives catalog of the Van EPTs that, conceded counsel provided EPT’s Division of EPT Component knowledge, every turn clean a disclaimer: that it eventually products manufactured inte- DEVICES —The “SAFETY grated safety 'only with those provided into a are conveyor-belt system that re- It identified herein. guards would include more one or dangerous nip to furnish purchaser sponsibility of points. Moreover, apparently parties machinery parts guards appropriate do not without dispute guard a or standards, as with OSHA compliance in protective device some least sort—or at safety desired devices any other well as a warning conveyor- in nip points —t\ese required purchaser and/or systems expose an unreason- users to law.” able risk of debilitating suffe&ag that Colmar EPT also asserted of the kind that in plaintiff sustained catalog. Sec- copy NEED had a Thus, this case. % a in situation ond, typically it includes EPT claimed wkich some uses the component part in risk nip-point relative to result non-dangero\xs integration, bushings, its pack the boxes that it uses to whereas others—like the integration wing pul- sub-components which are conveyor-belt system in an unrea- —result In- “CAUTION: warning reads: ley. The sonable risk of danger to foreseeable in accor- drives all around guards stall users. Rather, as practical matter, codes.” national with local dance only known use for (that is, EPT’s pulleys pulleys all Third, EPT maintained integration into conveyor-belt systems) re- awith affixed 1993 were sold in sults nip points that, without guards warning. *9 providing sticker yellow warnings, pose unreasonable risks harmof stated: warning to foreseeable users. Under these circum- PROD- THE DEVICES. “SAFETY stances, I would treat the component ONLY pul- WITH PROVIDED ARE UCTS leys as if they IDENTI- were DEVICES defective in and of SAFETY THOSE RE- THE IT IS themselves HEREIN. because FIED their only foreseeable against the manufacturer SPONSIBILITY OF THE PURCHAS- which, APPROPRIATE into a con- ER TO FURNISH parts GUARDS FOR MACHINERY PARTS invariably nip created veyor-belt system, IN COMPLIANCE WITH OSHA warning points and which contained STANDARDS, AS ANY labels, decals, AS WELL or other instructions signs, OTHER SAFETY DE- DEVICES these Such a warn- nip points). relative to SIRED BY PURCHASER likely have ing warnings most AND/OR REQUIRED BY LAW.” pulleys alerted purchasers and/or that, system guard users of the without (1) The parties dispute here whether the system around use of the nip point, containing warnings boxes were ever prove unreasonably dangerous. could shipped delivered when EPT the wing pul- in a most favor- Viewing light evidence leys to NEED integration into its con- able to the nonmoving party, (2) veyor-belt system whether EPT may not have chosen to clear the debris any attached sticker to the pulleys used in away from the area near the point, conveyor-belt system. NEED’S least operation, while the was in if event, the fact that EPT went to the trou- pulley had alerted him to ble of printing warning that was included the danger doing safety so without a in at least some of its packing boxes and guard on the nip point. affixed to certain of its pulleys represents some indication that it was well aware EPT, Accordingly, with I re- unreasonably dangerous condition cre- spectfully dissent from the Court’s decision ated the inevitable integration of its grant affirm the judg- wing pulleys conveyor-belt systems Rather, ment. I would remand this case like the one assembled for NEED. More- to the Superior proceed- Court for further over, because the to warn runs to ings concerning wing pul- whether EPT’s foreseeable users of the product and not ley was defective in- because failed to just buyers, warnings in boxes that are guard clude some sort of a feasible device discarded after assembly may not be suffi- like the pulleys. one used in its other cient to alert users like Buonanno to the Moreover, I also would remand for further danger. proceedings concerning whether the
Accordingly, it genu- seems to me that a was defective because of the failure to ine issue of material fact exists over include some on type warning whether the wing pulleys were defective in itself that would alert users to nip- and of themselves virtue of EPT’s al- point danger. Finally, I agree with and leged failure to include some type warn- join my colleagues’ therefore decision to ing(s) with and on the pulleys themselves reverse summary judgment concerning concerning the dangerous nip-point condi- Colmar.
tion that would result from their inevitable conveyor-belt into NEED’S Sales, See Parkins v. Van Doren
Inc., (1986) Wash.App. P.2d 389
(holding that summary judgment was im-
proper a case involving injured plain-
tiffs strict-liability failure-to-warn claim