 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.12/29/2000
[No. 5353 - December 29, 2000]
Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, James K. Singleton, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Dan Smith suffered permanent injuries after an air compressor door fell on his head. He brought a strict products liability lawsuit in federal district court against Ingersoll-Rand Company, the manufacturer of the air compressor. Following three jury trials and a remand from the Ninth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Singleton, J., certified the following questions to this court:
(1) Did the 1986 Tort Reform Act change the existing law on comparative fault in products liability cases such that a plaintiff's failure to exercise ordinary care is now sufficient to raise a jury question on comparative fault?
(2) If not, can a worker 's failure to wear an available hard-hat, which would have eliminated or greatly reduced the worker's damages from a head-injury caused by the defective product, constitute comparative fault such that the worker's damages are diminished proportionally?
(3) If not, can a worker 's propping a door open on a defective product in a manner the worker knows to be unsafe constitute comparative fault such that the worker's damages are diminished proportionally?
Because the 1986 Tort Reform Act modified the definition of comparative fault in strict liability cases to include ordinary negligence, we answer the first question in the affirmative. The other two questions therefore become moot.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
On August 12, 1987, Dan Smith was injured at Prudhoe Bay while attempting to start the diesel engine of an Ingersoll-Rand portable air compressor. Smith, a light duty mechanic, was not wearing a hard hat when he was dispatched by his supervisor to start the air compressor's engine.
The air compressor was an older model that required the mechanic to open its door in order to start the engine. There was no latch on the door to hold it open. Instead, the mechanic had to prop the door open in one of three ways: (1) the fully-open position; (2) the up-and-folded position; or (3) the wedged position. The first two positions safely hold the door in place; the third position is unsafe.
The exact details of Smith's accident are unknown. Smith does not remember how he propped the door open. All that he remembers is that he opened the door, started the engine, and the "next thing knew, was picking the door up off the top of head." Somehow -- whether from wind, vibration, or improper placement -- the door had fallen from its open position and hit Smith's head. Initially, despite some blood and swelling, Smith did not think that he was seriously injured.
However, eleven days after the accident, Smith suffered a generalized motor seizure. He had no history of seizures in his adult life. On the medevac plane out of Prudhoe Bay, he suffered another seizure. He was later diagnosed with traumatic epilepsy, presumably caused by the compressor door hitting his head.
Since the accident, Smith has continued to suffer from repeated seizures, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, lapses in memory, and other related medical problems. He lost his job because of these medical problems and remains unemployed.
B. Proceedings
In 1988, Smith filed a products liability suit against Ingersoll-Rand in state court, alleging that the company had designed a defective product. Smith claimed that the compressor was defective because it did not include a latch to hold its doors open and becau
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|