DAVID E. COLTER vs. BARBER-GREENE COMPANY & another.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
July 20, 1988
403 Mass. 50
Suffolk. October 7, 1987. — July 20, 1988. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, & O‘CONNOR, JJ.
In a civil action in which the jury were not asked to apportion the plaintiff‘s contributing negligence between the two theories of negligence on which the case was tried, where recovery was held to be proper on only one theory, the case was remanded for a new trial. [51-52]
At the trial of a claim for negligence against the manufacturer of a so-called sand classifier arising out of severe arm injuries sustained by a worker while greasing the gears of the machine, there was sufficient evidence on the issue whether the negligent design of the machine proximately caused the worker‘s injuries to submit that claim to the jury; however, with respect to the issue of the manufacturer‘s negligent failure to warn of the hazards of greasing the gears without shutting down the machine‘s operation, the manufacturer was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law where, in light of the worker‘s admitted knowledge of the dangers inherent in greasing the machine in such manner, a warning would not have reduced the likelihood of injury. [54-59] O‘CONNOR, J., dissenting in part.
At the trial of claims for negligence and breach of warranty against both the manufacturer of a certain machine and a company that bought the machine and later traded it to another company whose employee, the plaintiff, sustained severe arm injuries while greasing the gears of the machine, the jury‘s finding on the warranty claim that the plaintiff unreasonably proceeded to use the machine after becoming aware of its defective condition did not bar recovery on the plaintiff‘s negligence claim as a matter of law. [60-65]
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 12, 1979.
Richard L. Neumeier (Andre A. Sansoucy & John W. Brister with him) for Barber-Greene Company.
Edward Barrett (Jacqueline Sullivan with him) for New England Road Machinery Company.
Neil Sugarman for the plaintiff.
ABRAMS, J. On December 5, 1978, David E. Colter suffered severe arm injuries while greasing the gears of a twin screw sand classifier owned and operated by Colter‘s employer, Marshfield Sand & Gravel Company (Marshfield).2 The machine was manufactured by a division of Barber-Greene Company (Barber-Greene) which sold it to Worcester Sand & Gravel Company (Worcester). Worcester traded the machine to New England Road Machinery Company (New England), which later sold it to Marshfield. Colter sued Barber-Greene, Worcester, and New England asserting causes of action for negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular use.3 The jury found Barber-Greene to have been 36% negligent, found New England to have been 15% negligent, found Worcester not to have been negligent,4 and found Colter to have been 49% contributorily negligent. On the warranty count, the jury found that Barber-Greene and New England each had breached its implied warranty of merchantability and had proximately caused Colter‘s injuries. However, the jury also found that Colter‘s recovery was barred because he had actual knowledge of the machine‘s defective condition, but nonetheless proceeded unreasonably to use the machine.
Barber-Greene and New England moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, arguing that the finding on the warranty count was inconsistent with and negated
At the time of his accident, Colter was employed as a manager at Marshfield‘s quarry in Weymouth. Marshfield operated quarrying equipment at this location including the twin screw sand classifier involved in Colter‘s accident. The twin screw classifier consisted of a rectangular hopper containing two screw augers. The screws were driven by a set of bevel gears which ran at a speed of approximately twenty to thirty revolutions per minute. The gears, which were powered by an electric motor, were mounted on a steel frame approximately twenty feet above ground. A conveyor belt fed wet sand into the hopper. The screws carried the sand upward to another con-
Barber-Greene‘s specifications called for a guard to cover the bevel gears, and they did not sell the machine without one. When Worcester purchased the machine involved in Colter‘s accident in 1952, the purchase included a bevel gear guard. By the time New England took the twin screw sand classifier from Worcester in trade, there was no guard on the machine and the owner‘s manual which showed the guard in place was missing as well. New England sold the machine to Marshfield in 1969 without the guard or the owner‘s manual. New England did not inform Marshfield that the machine‘s bevel gears should be covered. Although Barber-Greene manufactured replacement guards, Marshfield never obtained a guard for the gears.
Colter began his employment with Marshfield in 1971 as a concrete salesman assigned to Marshfield‘s Cohasset office.7 In 1975, Colter was promoted to the position of safety director at the Weymouth plant. In the summer of 1977, Marshfield moved the sand classifier to Weymouth and mounted it on the twenty-foot high steel structure. Although Colter was generally aware of the dangers of exposed gears, he was not aware that the machine required a guard. Personnel from the United States Bureau of Mine Safety and Health Administration frequently inspected the Weymouth facility, but never instructed Colter to obtain a bevel gear guard for the sand classifier because the gear box was mounted above ground.
On the day of the accident, Colter arrived at work sometime between 10:30 and 11 A.M. The plant‘s operation had started late that day because the cold weather had frozen some pipes. Shortly after lunch, Colter passed the “wet end of the plant” and heard a loud screaming “steel-on-steel” noise emanating from the gears of the sand classifier. Colter had never heard the machine make this kind of noise and, because the noise was so loud, he feared that the machine would come apart. Colter knew that the company‘s operations at that time were
1. Sufficiency of the evidence. Barber-Greene contends that the judge denied erroneously its motion for a directed verdict on the negligence counts because there was insufficient evidence that its conduct proximately caused the plaintiff‘s injuries. In determining whether the jury were warranted in finding Barber-Greene negligent, “[t]he question is whether the evidence, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, could not support a verdict for the plaintiff.” Poirier v. Plymouth, 374 Mass. 206, 212 (1978). The plaintiff is entitled to judgment if “anywhere in the evidence, from whatever source derived, any combination of circumstances could be found from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the plaintiff.” Raunela v. Hertz Corp., 361 Mass. 341, 343 (1972), quoting Kelly v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 315 Mass. 301, 301-302 (1943). To withstand a motion for a directed verdict on the issue of proximate causation, the plaintiff need only demon-
On the issue of negligent design, Colter alleged that the design of the twin screw classifier was defective in two major respects. First, Colter argued that the sand classifier was defectively designed because it used outdated power transmission elements which required manual greasing rather than using fully enclosed elements which rotated in their own lubricating bath. The latter design eliminated the need to guard against injury from greasing the gears because the gears were self-lubricating. Given that the machine involved in Colter‘s accident used exposed power transmission elements, Colter argued that the sand classifier was deficient in a second respect, namely that the guard that covered the exposed gears was improperly designed. Colter argued that the gear guard was defective because it contained large openings that would allow sand and dirt to enter the gears thus ensuring that the guard would need frequent removal for cleaning, greasing, and other maintenance. Colter also argued that the gear guard was too cumbersome to be removed and replaced easily and that the guard, by its own improper design, invited permanent removal.
Colter presented the expert testimony of Egor Paul, a professor of mechanical engineering, who stated that the sand classifier itself was defectively designed because the power transmission elements were exposed to the dirty, sandy environment of the gravel yard and thus required frequent cleaning and greasing. Paul stated that designs which fully enclosed the power transmission elements in a self-lubricating bath had been available since the 1930‘s, and that these designs eliminated the need for greasing the transmission elements.
As regards the gear guard itself, Colter contended that the guard was defective because the gear guard did not completely enclose the gears, but left an opening at the bottom and two additional cutouts in the guard. Professor Paul testified that because the machine was intended for use in a sandy, dusty environment, the openings guaranteed that the gears would need frequent greasing. James Mueller stated that Barber-Greene expected that the sand classifier‘s gear guard could need to be removed twice a month so that the machine could be washed, greased, and serviced. Although Worcester‘s representative stated that he did not know what happened to the gear guard, on cross-examination Barber-Greene‘s representative recognized that the sand classifier‘s gears might need washing as many as 624 times between the machine‘s manufacture in 1952 and Colter‘s accident in 1978. Worcester‘s representative, Matteo Trotto, testified that the gears never were washed while Worcester owned the machine, but that they were greased and repaired. Trotto stated that he did not know whether the guard was removed for the greasing, but that the repairs possibly would have required the guard‘s removal.
Because the guard would need to be removed frequently, Colter argued that the guard was negligently designed because it was not easily removed and replaced. The gear guard designed by Barber-Greene weighed approximately sixty pounds and was attached to the sand classifier by five bolts. Two workers were required to remove and replace the guard. The gears were mounted on the high end of the machine, and Barber-
We hold a manufacturer liable for defectively designed products because the manufacturer is in the best position to recognize and eliminate the design defects. See Solimene v. B. Grauel & Co., KG, 399 Mass. 790, 796 (1987). “In evaluating the adequacy of a product‘s design, the jury should consider, among other factors, ‘the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.’ ” Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass. 633, 642 (1978), quoting Barker v. Lull Eng‘r Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 431 (1978). “[T]here is a case for the jury if the plaintiff can show an available design modification which would reduce the risk without undue cost or interference with the performance of the machinery.” Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874, 881 (1978). As the Appeals Court has noted, it is the jury‘s function to determine “whether the circumstances of the guard‘s removal and the plaintiff‘s subsequent injury were reasonably foreseeable.” Fahey v. Rockwell Graphics Syss., Inc., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 648 (1985).9
The jury also could have found that the open guard was defective as well. Moreover, the jury could have found that, because the guard lacked any access panels or doors through which an individual could clean or grease the gears, the guard had to be removed each time the bevel gears required attention. Because the gear guard was so cumbersome, the jury could have concluded that it was entirely foreseeable that a purchaser of the machine would remove the guard permanently. In the absence of any testimony as to what actually happened to the gear guard while the sand classifier was in Worcester‘s possession, the jury were entitled to infer10 that the guard was removed
On the issue of its negligent failure to warn of the hazards of cleaning the bevel gears without shutting down the machine‘s operation, Barber-Greene contends that Colter‘s admitted knowledge of the dangers inherent in greasing the machine without the guard relieves the company of liability because Barber-Greene‘s failure to warn was not the proximate cause of Colter‘s injuries. As this court has recognized, where the danger presented by a given product is obvious, no duty to warn may be required because a warning will not reduce the likelihood of injury. Uloth, supra at 880. See also Fiorentino v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 11 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 436 (1981). Colter admitted he knew it was dangerous to grease the gears while operating the machine. In these circumstances, a warning would not reduce the likelihood of injury. We therefore agree with Barber-Greene that it was entitled to a judgment on this theory as a matter of law.
Barber-Greene and New England principally rely on language in Correia to support their contention that Colter‘s unreasonable use of the sand classifier is, for purposes of negligence, a bar to recovery. This court stated, “[T]he user‘s negligence does not prevent recovery except when he unreasonably uses a product that he knows to be defective and dangerous. In such circumstances, the user‘s conduct alone is the proximate cause of his injuries, as a matter of law, and recovery is appropriately denied. In short, the user is denied recovery, not because of his contributory negligence or his assumption of the risk but rather because his conduct is the proximate cause of his injuries.” Correia, supra at 356.
Although there is a certain logic to the defendants’ argument that a finding of unreasonable use in a warranty count negates a finding of proximate cause on a negligence count, the argument is flawed because it equates proximate cause with sole
It is a well-settled proposition that actions for negligence and for breach of warranty impose distinct duties and standards of care. The basic elements of a products liability action founded on negligence are duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, and proximate cause. Epstein, Products Liability: Defenses Based on Plaintiff‘s Conduct, 1968 Utah L. Rev. 267, 268. The focus of the negligence inquiry is on the conduct of the defendant. We impose liability when a product‘s manufacturer or seller has failed to use reasonable care to eliminate foreseeable dangers which subject a user to an unreasonable risk of injury. Correia, supra at 354. Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620, 624 (1978). Uloth, supra at 878. See Prosser & Keeton, Torts 683 (5th ed. 1984); Twerski, From Defect to Cause to Comparative Fault — Rethinking Some Product Liability Concepts, 60 Marq. L. Rev. 297, 298 (1977). “[A] finding of negligence [is] a statement by the jury about the product and about the manufacturer as well. It signifie[s] that the product was unreasonably dangerous because of its design or because of its failure to be accompanied by an adequate warning, or both. It also signifie[s] that an ordinarily prudent manufacturer would have recognized the product‘s shortcomings and would have taken appropriate corrective measures.” Hayes v. Ariens Co., 391 Mass. 407, 410 (1984).
Liability for breach of warranty stands on a much different footing. In Massachusetts, liability for breach of warranty of merchantability is governed by
In a negligence case, the conduct of the plaintiff which will serve to bar recovery is governed by statute. Our comparative negligence statute provides that the plaintiff‘s contributory negligence shall not bar recovery if the plaintiff‘s negligence was not greater than the total amount of negligence attributable to the parties against whom recovery is sought. The plaintiff‘s negligence, if less than the amount attributable to the defendant or defendants, only serves to diminish recovery by the proportion of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.
Defined most simply, contributory negligence in products liability cases consists of the plaintiff‘s failure to discover the product‘s defect or to guard against the possibility that such a danger exists. Noel, Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence, and Assumption of Risk, 25 Vand. L. Rev. 93, 106 (1972); Epstein, supra at 270. Essentially, we require the plaintiff to act reasonably with respect to the product he or she is using. The plaintiff‘s contributory negligence is measured objectively.
In warranty, as in negligence, a plaintiff‘s conduct may bar recovery from a liable defendant. “The absolute bar to the user for breach of his duty balances the strict liability placed on the seller. Other than this instance, the parties are not presumed to be equally responsible for injuries caused by defective products, and the principles of contributory or comparative negligence have no part in the strict liability scheme.” Correia, supra at 355-356. Because warranty liability focuses on whether the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous and not on the conduct of the user or the seller, “the only duty imposed on the user is to act reasonably with respect to a product which he knows to be defective and dangerous. When a user unreasonably proceeds to use a product which he knows to be defective and dangerous, he violates that duty and relinquishes the protection of the law. It is only then that it is appropriate to account for his conduct in determining liability. Since he has voluntarily relinquished the law‘s protection, it is further appropriate that he is barred from recovery.” Id. at 355. The plaintiff‘s conduct implies consent to the risk and thus is viewed as the sole proximate cause of the injury. Noel, supra at 129.
Applying the unreasonable use doctrine to actions sounding in negligence is foreclosed by the Commonwealth‘s comparative negligence statute. That statute provides that a plaintiff‘s
So ordered.
O‘CONNOR, J. (dissenting in part). I agree that the jury‘s finding that Colter unreasonably used the machine, knowing it to be defective, does not bar Colter from recovery against Barber-Greene or New England on a negligence theory. I also agree that, as a matter of law, Barber-Greene was entitled to judgment on Colter‘s claim of negligent failure to warn. There-
When Worcester purchased the machine in 1952, it was equipped with a gear guard. By the time New England took the machine from Worcester, the guard was missing. The court concludes that, “[i]n the absence of any testimony as to what actually happened to the gear guard while the sand classifier was in Worcester‘s possession, the jury were entitled to infer that the guard was removed for greasing and repair and was not replaced because it was too cumbersome, not efficient, and too costly in the labor required to remove and replace the gear guard.” Ante at 58-59. I disagree. It is true that the jury could have found that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have designed the machine differently so as to reduce the need to remove the guard in order to make repairs. It is also true that the jury could have found that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have designed the machine differently so as to eliminate the need to remove the guard in order to clean and grease the gears, and that the jury could have found that Barber-Greene reasonably could have foreseen that, due to efficiency and cost considerations, a user of the machine would choose not to replace the guard after removing it. It follows
On the evidence, it is entirely speculative whether the guard was off the machine for any of the reasons set forth above. Therefore, although the jury could have found that Barber-Greene took a foreseeable risk in designing its machine, the jury could only have speculated that the injuries suffered by Colter were within that risk. The void in the evidence ought to be fatal to the plaintiff‘s case against Barber-Greene. As the court has previously stated, “[i]t is ... necessary for [a] plaintiff to prove [not only] that the defendant took a risk with respect to the plaintiff‘s safety that a person of ordinary prudence would not have taken, [but also] that the plaintiff suffered a resulting injury that was within the foreseeable risk.” Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc., 385 Mass. 323, 330 (1982).
The court asserts that this case is indistinguishable from Fahey v. Rockwell Graphics Syss., Inc., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 642 (1985). In my view, the cases are critically distinguishable. The distinction focuses on the very point expressed above. In Fahey, the evidence not only disclosed that removal of a machine guard to facilitate speedy production was a risk foreseeable by the manufacturer, but it also disclosed that the plaintiff‘s injury resulted from the guard being removed for that very reason. Id. at 645. Unlike here, the injury was shown to have been within the foreseeable risk. As the court correctly notes, ante at 58-59 n.10, the Appeals Court concluded in Fahey that the jury were entitled to decide “whether the circumstances of the guard‘s removal and the plaintiff‘s subsequent injury were reasonably foreseeable.” Id. at 648. However, in this case, the jury were not in position to do that be-
Based on the plaintiff‘s best evidence, a gambling man with an appreciation of mathematical probabilities might be willing to bet that the guard was removed in order to facilitate repairs or other maintenance that would not have been necessary in the absence of Barber-Greene‘s negligence, and was left off the machine as a means of efficiency and economy. However, Colter had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury was within that foreseeable risk. He did not sustain that burden. Mere mathematical odds, no matter how favorable to a proposition, do not constitute proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence.
“It has been held not enough that mathematically the chances somewhat favor a proposition to be proved; for example, the fact that colored automobiles made in the current year outnumber black ones would not warrant a finding that an undescribed automobile of the current year is colored and not black, nor would the fact that only a minority of men die of cancer warrant a finding that a particular man did not die of cancer. ... The weight or preponderance of evidence is its power to convince the tribunal which has the determination of the fact, of the actual truth of the proposition to be proved. After the evidence has been weighed, that proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if it is made to appear more likely or probable in the sense that actual belief in its truth, derived from the evidence, exists in the mind or minds of the tribunal notwithstanding any doubts that may still linger there” (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Sargent v. Massachusetts Accident Co., 307 Mass. 246, 250 (1940). Sargent was an action on a policy of life insurance. A majority of the court concluded that the evidence warranted a jury finding ”not merely that there was a greater chance that the insured met his death by accident falling within the policy than that he met a different fate, but that death by accident within the policy was in fact indicated by a preponderance of the evidence” (emphasis added). Id. at 251.