Deborah J. Birchfield, Administratrix, Estate of William K. Birchfield, Deceased v. International Harvester Company

When the out. fertilizer becomes compact- JONES, Before MERRITT and Circuit point, ed to it will often present a WEICK, Judges, Judge. Senior Circuit vertical face. sheer If an attempt is made -JONES, R. to shovel fertilizer when Judge. NATHANIEL Circuit in this condi- tion, without first blasting the compacted Plaintiff-appellant, J. Deborah loose, material the face of the pile could Birchfield, order appeals from an collapse. a directed verdict granting district court In 1974 Grace eleven bought Model defendant-appellee, International H25B favor Builders, loaders front-end from Road court’s final order Harvester. The district followed a dealer International Harvester. this death action wrongful loaders were not equipped in the appellant verdict in favor jury experienced pay- Birchfield was an $360,000.00. The had reserved sum of court loader, years experience with over motion for a two ruling on the defendant’s those On operating at Grace. November verdict and case directed submitted 14, 1975, operating William Birchfield was negligent design jury theories of upon morning, one front end loader. That liability for de such and manufacture and strict verdict, the fertilizer in the the Birchfield noticed that Following the design. fective was to compacted, bin he unload was International trial court concluded that ruled, deprive parties jury determi- in the does district court also alterna- 1. The scrutiny tive, and is thus viewed with less the directed verdict mooted nation express upon appeal. issue, view on grant appellee’s While we no motion it would ruling exces- should be deemed this whether verdict a new The court based trial. sive, clearly trial court decline to find so we that “the verdict its conclusion granting pas- trial on a new abused its discretion it must have resulted from excessive that though Accordingly, contrary vacate the we prejudice, law.” that basis. and is sion judgment we do not choose greater decid- court’s The trial has discretion in Rather, we re- verdict. grant the- ing new trial than is reinstate not to whether or present judgment for a new cause the district court not- mand the the directed verdict withstanding on all issues. context. former trial the verdict

H33 a sheer vertical face which presenting held liable under either a negligence or a blasting. would necessitate Birchfield ad- liability theory. supervisor

vised his immediate that was necessary to “shoot the but indicated pile,” II. enough

that there was one likely excess on Liability Strict pile single side of the for a The load. The

supervisor apparently judgment told him to remove trial court based its the then to proceed appellee part load and blast. in favor of in on the conclu sion that strict tort liability apply would not approached pile When Birchfield the of design in defect cases. The court reasoned fertilizer in International Harvester as follows: loader, the A pile collapsed. large chunk of is great dispute There over the techni- compacted fertilizer down rolled the face of legal problems cal of whether the rule of the struck pile and Birchfield in the chest. strict liability product liability in cases Several employees managed pull to Birch- to of design, extends cases defects in field from the front-end loader and he was to actual only physical taken to defects in hospital the in ambulance. the Birchfield of The multiple injuries product. died internal better rule to seems be within an hour of the accident. that manufacture is only liable for neg- ligence design in the which proximately 20, 1977, September appellant, On ad- as in the injuries resulted to the user. estate, of ministratrix Birchfield’s filed put, Simply the district action in the Common court found that the Pleas Court of Han- complaint alleged liability cock Ohio. The strict claim as the County, appel- framed International Harvester’s to not cognizable failure lant was under Ohio law. equip the front end loader with an overhead Our review of the relevant case law indi- caused had Birchfield’s death. Inter- the cates that district court in erred reach- national Harvester removed the action to ing this conclusion. formulation of the Federal District Court for the Northern liability strict clearly under Ohio law ap- Ohio, jury District of Western Division. A plies fully defect claims as as it began trial October 1980. does to claims of physical actual defects in product. the moved di-

International Harvester for a rected verdict at the close estate’s Though the court specifically district re- and, again, case at close of the the all United, Inc., lied Wean upon Temple v. 50 in jury evidence. The returned verdict (1977), 364 N.E.2d St.2d estate, awarding $120,000.00 favor of the holding, actually supports case $240,- pain suffering conscious and and contrary Temple, plaintiff view.2 In wrongful 000.00 for death. lost both arms below the when a elbow punch power came down on them. The verdict, Following International sued the plaintiff manufacturer under both court Harvester asked trial to rule liability negligence strict and theories. The its earlier directed verdict motions. The Supreme alternative, Ohio Court considered both. The requested, appellee also plaintiff’s noted that Court first judgment theory or a notwithstanding verdict 4, 1981, upon was premised liability new trial. On the court strict stan- February granted a directed verdict favor of Inter- dard contained in 402A of the Re- Harvester, above, finding, as proceeded national noted statement Torts 2d and expressly approve Harvester could not be and 402A adopt Section International upon liability. only with, Gosset v. court Gossett was 2. The trial also relied concerned Corp., Chrysler (6th Cir.1966). only F.2d itself to issues addresses simply inappropriate Gossett That reliance question design. The whether standard long was decided before the Ohio unrelated the reasonableness manu- Temple ruling long Court’s employed should facturer’s conduct was not development before notions of lia- the court. before bility products in tort the context of Ohio liabili- had its rollbar failed products law of vehicle overturned and the Ohio part 321-22, plaintiffs protect passengers. at ty.3 Ohio St.2d Jeep defectively de- summary claimed that was affirmed the court citing Temple the court defendant, signed agreed, favor of the how- judgment for its of Section 402A. application ever, that the defective condition finding manu- not attributable to the press claims International Harvester facturer, rather, al- to the substantial but Temple Leichtamer was an extension of plaintiff’s employer terations made applied “retroactively.” which should not be Having been sold. press after mer- this contention to be without We find law, and hav- Section 402A the adopted First, Leichtamer not announce it. did it not warrant determined that would ing law; followed the expressly new rule of relief in that the Ohio court turned The Leichtamer Temple decision. press claim that the had been plaintiff’s that strict reemphasized The then designed. found negligently and on to simply the law in Ohio went rea- the had exercised manufacturer showing required of the explain the nature in the circumstances and refus- sonable care design its in defect applicability to establish basis, negligence relief on the grant ed to Motors cases. also General See Sours just application under 402A. The as had (6th Cir.1983); F.2d Knitz v. Corp., 717 1511 design the negligence of the standard to Co., 460, Machine 69 Ohio St.2d Minster however, not, question negate possi- the did 462-65, (1982). Further- 432 N.E.2d 814 liability to that of strict bility applying more, did not the Leichtamer court itself no substantial same issue in a case where application. to holding prospective limit its in can be shown. Rath- change product the Rather, award of the court affirmed an accident, er, adopting we Temple read damages for an which oc- products as a for in all liability 1976, 402A basis April, curred in with that award based cases, nature of liability no matter what the solely liability strict for a defective de- on alleged defect. sign. of the Ohio Subsequent decisions Su- most recent Ohio Court’s preme interpreta- reemphasizes confirm this on both clearly statement the issue v. American in Ohio Temple. tion of In Leichtamer that Section 402A has been law 456, do Temple Motors 67 Ohio 424 N.E.2d since and the Ohio Courts Corp., St.2d develop- (1981) squarely products liability Ohio court held limit their products damages injuries cause action for for ments to accidents which occur or “a design or which are manufactured at later dates. product caused enhanced Co., liability lie in in tort. St.2d defect will strict Knitz v. Minster Machine Ohio Knitz, United, Inc., 460, (1982). In 50 Ohio 432 N.E.2d 814 (Temple v. Wean St.2d press fol- and claimed that the defendant’s approved plaintiff N.E.2d 267] [364 lowed.)” at 364 N.E.2d allowed design 50 Ohio was defective because St.2d Leichtamer, pedal plain- accidental of the foot control Syllabus tripping 1. In Jeep provide in a to which would injured riding tiffs were while and failed pedal prevent injury on an off the road course. whenever the foot Model CJ-7 347) (b) (2 expected Restatement of Torts 2d it is to and does the user Section 402A reach change reads as follows: or without substantial in consumer Liability Special the condition in which it is sold. of Product of Seller Physical (2) (1) applies Harm to Consumer. al- The rule subsection (1) any product who sells defective though One unreasonably dangerous user (a) condition to the possible all the seller has exercised care subject property or his is or consumer product, in the sale of his and thereby liability physical harm caused bought (b) the user or consumer has not consumer, prop- user or to his the ultimate or into contractual from or entered erty, if with the seller. relation (a) engaged is in the business of seller selling product, such law, Leichtamer, operative. analyzed supra. appellee The court Ohio is also cor- Temple firmly established explaining (g), (i) rect the assertion that comments liability principle the strict and that Leich- Restatement, (j) together estab- nature of the burden tamer clarified the the requirement lish that an article prod- es- upon plaintiff attempting when “unreasonably uct be con- dangerous liability in a defect tablish is to deemed dition” before it defective. 462-65, case. Ohio at St.2d assertions, It these does not follow from 814. The court proceeded develop however, liability is that strict an unavaila- of defectiveness for alternative standard ble basis for in this case. in which Leichtamer consum- situations er test would be insufficient expectations First, appellee’s characterization that standard to accident applied “unreasonably dangerous condition” and which was had occurred which standard, requirement to be - subject summary judgment of a 1978 eye with an applied toward conduct therefore, It appears, motion. that there is manufacturer, clearly is incorrect. and, no to the retroactivity real issue extent definition, liability, Strict unconcerned exists, arguably that one the Ohio courts with part standards behavior favoring ap- have resolved retroactive it— very manufacturer. The comments plication developments law from the Restatement which International products liability. emphasize Harvester cites that the presence clear danger

Based these statements of or absence unreasonable is to be law, we are convinced that the district to knowledge determined reference the interpretation Temple court’s was incor- user, to the the conduct of the manu that, not, if it rect and even were the Ohio Supreme clearly facturer. The Ohio Court subsequent in Supreme Court’s statements a adopted user-oriented test in Leichtamer Leichtamer and full apply Knitz would it product when held that will be found “[a] appeal.4 Accordingly, force this case on dangerous it unreasonably dangerous if is the trial court’s conclusion that the strict beyond expectations to an extent the of an issue was not under liability cognizable ordinary consumer when used in an intend Ohio is a judgment law erroneous and reasonably ed or manner.” 67 forseeable should not have entered in been favor 467, 424 Ohio St.2d at N.E.2d 568. The the appellees on that basis. did not include considerations of the in calcu negligence manufacturer’s the argues,

International Harvester in the al- ternative, danger. if lation unreasonable that even strict is a liability pre-Leichtamer viable cause action in addition, In International Har general, in it be design defect cases should danger vester’s claim the that unreasonable present unavailable in the case because element can be case satisfied this the appellant’s failure to show that the if the even manufacturer’s is design “unreasonably dangerous,” as irrelevant to that determination is also in required under The appellee Section 402A. sufficient to justify affirmance of the dis is correct in that the Ohio noting trict court. originally adopted pure expec 402A of Under consumer test, Leichtamer, along applied the Restatement of Torts 2d with its tations the Temple, supra; attendant comments. See issue of the the danger.posed whether Drayton v. Jiffee extent dicta in To the that demands that this Court as it follow state law Corp., (6th Cir.1978) Chemical interpreted by highest given 591 F.2d 352 is the court of that Temple proposition for the that a Temple Hence, reads manu required state. are we read only design is liable for defects in the facturer explained the Ohio Courts have it is to be negligent creating product of a where was Corp., Leichtamer v. American Motors read Temple design, interpretation ha that that 456, (1981) 67 Ohio St.2d 424 N.E.2d 568 s rejected by since been the Courts them Co., Knitz v. Minster Machine 69 Ohio St.2d Tompkins, diversity cases Erie v. In selves. 460, (1982). 64, 817, (1938), 304 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. expect, not know be- “beyond er would what of the absence the would have no idea how safe he ordinary of an consumer” cause expectations the case be is product follow- could made. Such jury, be one for the normally would cases, policy In judice.... the trial such from sub instructions ing appropriate requires in tort underlying record reveals review of the court. Since defective may that a be found issue, product are unable we no instruction on con- ordinary even if it satisfies design, in favor of verdict jury conclude hindsight through if expectations, resolution of sumer proper reflects appellant de- not, however, jury product determines that the require it. This does dan- sign preventable first in- embodies excessive the issue in the resolve Court to or, words, finds jury in other if the urges. ger While stance, appellee as the in the risk of inherent danger on unrea- instruction proper absence of design the benefit challenged outweighs a re- may justified danger have sonable jury design. in such were to the district court mand stand, justi- it does not permitted verdict we that a de- Accordingly, hold the issue from removal of fy complete in a defective to the user sign is condition Hence, proper jury consideration. (1) dangerous consumer if it is more or claim dealing appellee’s with the method of expect ordinary than an consumer would beyond danger posed was reasonably in an when used intended or under Leichtamer expectations Birchfield’s manner, (2) if the benefits forseeable the issue to through submission of outweigh challenged design do not of the that the test to retrial. We note jury upon inherent Factors design. the risk such is an in this context applied by defec- to the evaluation of the relevant eye one, to be with an objective examined product design are tiveness “ordinary of an expectations toward the will the product likelihood Ma- e.g. Knitz v. Minster consumer.” See danger injury, gravity cause Co., 432 N.E.2d 69 Ohio St.2d chine economic posed, and mechanical and (1982). improved design. of an feasibility 465-66, (citations Id. at N.E.2d Moreover, it is recent clear from the upon omitted). Accordingly, it is clear that presence law that the developments Ohio the issue of the defectiveness of remand longer defect is no or absence of a light now must be considered payloader to consum solely by be reference measured the defective- of the Knitz of formulation focuses initially er Instead it expectations. and, thus, appellee’s that the ness standard upon product. The Ohio deal expectations arguments only consumer recently a risk-benefit adopted Court has legal of issue involved portion with a in which employed test to be situations under Ohio law. necessarily not ordinary an consumer would court judgment by entered the trial expect product. know what to from a See this case Remanded hereby and Co., Minster Machine 69 Ohio St.2d Vacated Knitz v. opinion. in keeping a new trial with this for (1982). The Ohio circumstances, recognized that certain WEICK, Judge, dissenting: Circuit Senior or particularly where use of an industrial oriented is con non-consumer gist plain- dissent. The of respectfully I cerned, un ordinary may an consumer be pay- action the front-end tiff’s regarding clear expectations able to form the defend- loader trucks manufactured involved. The court reasoned any danger Company (In- ant, International Harvester should be in such situations the from ternational) purchased by and Grace which to talisman from given dealer, an alternative defectively de- were International’s product: the defectiveness of a measure equipped not come they in that did signed Leichtamer, con- guards, plaintiff which with overhead setting Unlike the factual the accident. prevented would have there are which the consum- tends situations in guard, for this is that Grace’s order head it would have The answer withstood provided specifications crushing for heavy falling detailed load upon was purchasing, specifica- loaders it which prevented injury decedent his and and accepted by tions were International and Also, shown, death. as hereinafter the de- any did include overhead not misusing equipment cedent was at the treated International guards These were time. optional

as and equipment accessories or appeal presents only questions This of an could have been Grace for purchased by controlling Ohio law as the facts un- were cost unit. per additional of Since $500 controverted. units, Grace ordered 11 it would have been required of expenditure additional

$5,500. order, customer, Grace, In its A. specifically request guards did not overhead The Facts of the 11 front-end which it loaders purchased International, yet from the plain- Plaintiff-Appellant’s decedent em- tiff for not seeks blame International Ohio, ployed a laborer at the Findlay, them, which would in violation supplying be plant fertilizer He Grace. had worked provisions order. Internation- for years, there several both before purchase al could have collected after service. military period The last price guards sup- of the overhead if it had employment was for approximately two plied them when not ordered. Internation- years, ending with his death November al was never advised of the uses which 14, 1975. Grace would make loaders. It would plant big The fertilizer of Grace was a seem the plaintiff should blame Grace operation, great quantities of fertilizer guards ordering the overhead very were stored in bins. large The bins International, which would have violat- height were filled with fertilizer to a agreement ed its by supplying sales unord- eighteen feet more. As fertilizer was A photograph payloader ered items. needed, it was shovelled out the bins (A. is appended 979a). hereto front-end loaders. It was not unusual American National for Pow- Standards firmly stored fertilizer become so Trucks, ANSI, B56.1-1969,

ered which were compacted the bins that be applicable, expressly admitted be pro- blasted with before it dynamite could be vides in follows: When out. the fertilizer became shovelled present Overhead Guard compacted, it would often a sheer could, vertical face. Such face and-often High-lift trucks Rider shall fitted did, attempt collapse, if was made to unless the cus- blasting. shovel the fertilizer out without requests tomer otherwise ... It employees The were aware of this hazard- build a impractical guard suffi- condition, ous and were instructed not to strength cient the impact withstand with enter bins front-end loaders to falling of a load since capacity such faces, work such vertical but did not would safety constitute a hazard instructions, always obey though these even large because its would be so structure were aware of them. they it might good that interfere with visi- weigh much bility, would so 14,1975, early On November in the morn- make truck might top-heavy ing, using was decedent front-end added). unstable. (Emphasis by loader manufactured defendant customer, Grace, the requested otherwise which was one of a number of machines by ordering Grace de- any by of the loaders that had been ordered from be with overhead No a dealer. It had been de- equipped through fendant if proof was offered to the effect that even of 1974 Grace’s at May plant livered Findlay, had been with an over- there It was built equipped loader and used since. according to B. specifications, to Grace’s order. purchase on Grace’s instructions Judge Properly Trial Directed The or had no overhead shield loader The a Verdict supplied the defendant guard,, although only claiming for that the Plaintiff’s basis pur- optional equipment guards such was on the defective rested al- payloader shields manu- its loaders. The chasers of violation of B56.1- leged ANSI Standard to all by defendant conformed factured Dr. Guen- expert testimony 1969 and the un- standards such shields. safety witness that opinion expert ther. The of an pos- it is not evidence showed that disputed is defective is not determinative. front-loaders, be- shields on sible to use all v. International Harvester Com- In Orfield used designed loaders are to be cause such (6th Cir.1976), 535 F.2d pany, the shields quarters where cramped a directed for the manu- obstruction, well as in affirmed verdict encounter would where it that a bull- alleged would not. facturer was open places they where canopy also the de- was de- undisputed protective evidence was without dozer knowledge, had no and was opinion fendant The court that the fective. held or dealer who informed Grace witness the bulldozer was expert machines, which purposes sold the defectively designed unreasonably dan- were to be used. they without a was not determi- gerous canopy and did not the district court require native event, day question, In any to submit the issue to the where his get of fertilizer decedent decided a load opinion supported by the evidence. compacted from a bin in which fertilizer presented feet eighteen a vertical face some opin- present In the Dr. Guenther’s fertiliz- a small of loose high, quantity with warrants for a num- very weight ion little The fertilizer er at one corner of base. He physically ber of reasons. never exam- “shot,” blasted, was due to or in this bin he payloader question; ined the never term, decedent employees’ to use but witnesses; any with he never visited spoke into He went blasting. did not wait for accident; and he has no the site against and ran his front-end loader bin manufacture, the design, experience fertilizer, which pile the base fact, marketing of a In he payloader. loader, and decedent collapsed, burying comply guidelines failed to with his own fertilizer, A up large to his waist. chunk of (A. 467-71). such matters inches described as from sixteen variously court has directed This affirmed verdicts two in diameter to three and one-half Keet past. E.g. for manufacturers in the feet, by two down the and one-half rolled Inc., Machine 472 F.2d Company, Service face of the of fertilizer and collapsing pile (6th Cir.1972); v. Chrysler Gossett Cor- right struck the decedent chest. Cir.1966). (6th 359 F.2d 84 poration, indica- evidence was devoid of totally fertilizer. weight tion of the the chunk of C. difficulty,

With some the decedent from the loader. An extracted front-end Liability Apply to a Does Not Strict A.M. ambulance had been called about 7:35 Design Defective Claim in Ohio He Decedent was conscious but confused. United, Inc., v. 50 Temple was taken to the local In Wean Ohio ambulance 317, (1977), room at 364 267 the Ohio hospital, entering emergency N.E.2d St.2d five Restatement of Supreme adopted 8:05 A.M. Within to ten minutes dece- 402A, but it to dent into unconsciousness. He died Torts limited defective § lapsed general emer- It thirty-five entering products. minutes after reiterated was concerning room. An showed death rule in Ohio defective gency autopsy la- including design negligence the result of internal is a standard. This court injuries, Temple Drayton cerations to the aorta the liver. so construed v. Jif- has

1139 352, (6th Corp., fee Chemical F.2d er a without canopy. The same applies in Cir.1978). the present case. William Birchfield was an experienced payloader operator. He Judge Subsequent Young’s opinion to knew the payloader did not have an 4, 1981), the instant case (February guard, overhead and he realized the dan- Ohio Court decided Leiehtamer v. gers pile a ramming tall of fertilizer. Corporation, American Motors 67 Ohio (1981). 424 N.E.2d 568 Leichtam- St.2d above, In light the trial court could extended to liability theory er the strict conclusion, but come to one that the pay- However, design defective cases. Leich- not unreasonably loader was dangerous un- applied retroactively tamer should not 402A, der Section and that International case, the instant it is distinguishable on Harvester was not negligent designing it. facts in any event. In Leiehtamer the a plaintiff safety relied on device which D. defective; here, to be was proved there no Complied International Harvester With safety present, device therefore dece- Industry Standards could been to dent not have misled as Young Judge ruled as a correctly matter dangers involved in operating payloader a of law that International Harvester had not guard. an without overhead industry violated standards concerning event, payloader In “un- was not guards on payloaders. overhead The over- within reasonably dangerous the user” whelming weight of testimony at trial meaning 402A Re- established International Harvester Ohio ac- statement Torts. case law has with complied B56.1-1969. ANSI that, a knowledged design in defective The does say standard that an over- is no practical there difference between guard head must be installed the manu- negligence. The test for equipment. facturer standard What it dangerous” an “unreasonably condition that a says is manufacturer must fit the equivalent to standard rea- with the equipment capacity to have an sonableness, has therefore manufacturer guard overhead installed at the op- user’s duty to exercise reasonable care tion. International Harvester complied product that will be safe for its reasonably with requirement by equipping the intended use. Corpo- Jones White Motor with payloader unit, brackets welded ration, App.2d optional for mounting suitable overhead (1978). In Anton v. Ford Company, Motor 568). guard (A. F.Supp. 1270, (S.D.Ohio 1975), 1278-80 Further,

the court noted that the “un- elements of expressly standard relieves reasonably dangerous to the user” Sec- obligation the manufacturer of any to in- tion 402A traditional negligence involve stall overhead if customer so concerning the principles duty purchase of the manu- indicates. order submitted by design reasonably prod- facturer safe Grace to International Harvester dealer uct. the payloaders purchased from whom were was for eleven payloaders standard i to g Comments and Section 402A of the equipment plus two optional accessories. Restatement that “unreasonably show dan (A. 31). Nothing was mentioned about dangerous gerous” means more than the protection. overhead The silence of Grace ordinary consumer would Or expect. In concerning guards could reason- Company, field v. International Harvester ably be construed International Harvest- (6th Cir.1976), F.2d 959 this court held er order to as an delete the There- protective that a bulldozer without a cano fore, complied the standard was with. dan was not defective py unreasonably plaintiff experi because gerous was an payloader assembly line operator product, enced bulldozer and was aware of but built according to order dangers operating specifications (A. 484-85). involved a bulldoz- Grace’s cus- it, the front and filled rely on entire of payloader, towas industry in tom chest. cockpit up to Mr. Birchfield’s the optional the safe- to specify the customer amount, appellant failed to the that unit. Given be installed were to guards that guard would have that overhead failing prove liable for is not A manufacturer has impact, such an and therefore prod- on a withstood safety device optional install an the absence of prove in accord- failed to been manufactured uct has cause of guard proximate was the purchas- overhead specifications ance with Harvester, injuries. the fatal v. International er. In Orfield Cir.1976) court af- (6th 535 F.2d ordering of Grace in not for the defendant- a directed verdict firmed payloader on the was protection overhead was of a bulldozer manufacturer intervening superseding cause of safety canopy. with overhead equipped Grace knew work- Birchfield’s death. that the manufacturer concluded it knew that ing plant, at the conditions obligations satisfied its of a bulldozer ramming operators given were payloader op- as an canopy available by making was though even of fertilizer piles informing the customer of the tion and then nothing but it did little dangerous, ought to We availability option. doing It had 18 them from this. prevent opinions. follow our own inspect the and ob- payloader months time it arrived to the its use from the serve

E. accident, but it never ordered time of Clearly, negli- overhead Harvester International Was supersedes any negligence of Grace gence Negligent Not of International Harvester. part on the or industry with federal Noncompliance the risk of decedent assumed Plaintiff’s se. negligence per standards is not the pay- his negligent misuse injury prove It merely is not sufficient instructions company loader. He violated designed; it defectively was payloader fertilizer be using compacted it on the alleged must that the defect also shown dynamited. was He was aware fore it was cause of the fatal acci- proximate ramming pile a tall of fertil dangers of an dent. In this the omission over- but did it payloader, anyway. izer he payloader head on the guard designed or intended payloader injuries. proximate Mr. Birchfield’s cause of precludes appellant’s This misuse that. Standard, According to the ANSI design. Fire for defective Calvert claim (page supra) Fyr-Fyter, Company Insurance impact withstand the not intended to (1979).* App.2d load. Three witnesses tes- falling capacity cave-in, judgment I affirm the firmly would tified that after District Young. Judge tires compacted fertilizer covered the on the * Ohio, January 17, Certify A overruled motion to the record was

Case Details

Case Name: Deborah J. Birchfield, Administratrix, Estate of William K. Birchfield, Deceased v. International Harvester Company

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 1, 1984

Citation: 726 F.2d 1131

Docket Number: 81-3105

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.