 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch3/5/1999
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.
Appellant Kevin Slisze sustained head injuries in an accident involving the use of a pneumatic nailer ("nailer"). Slisze brought suit against the manufacturer of the nailer, Stanley-Bostitch ("Stanley"), for negligence and strict product liability asserting that the tool was defective. Slisze seeks review of the following: (a) the dismissal of his negligence claim; (b) the admission of federal OSHA safety standards for the purpose of establishing a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness under Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-6(3); (c) the exclusion of testimony regarding foreign government standards prohibiting "contact-trip" nailers for the purpose of rebutting the presumption of non-defectiveness; and (d) an order granting partial summary judgment dismissing Slisze's claim for punitive damages. We affirm.
The nailer used at the time of the accident was a "contact-trip" model. The "contact-trip" nailer allows its operator to discharge nails regardless of whether the operator first pulls the gun's trigger or depresses the nailer's nose contact element, as long as both are used. The sequential-trip" model, on the other hand, also manufactured and sold by Stanley, requires that the nose contact element be depressed first and the trigger pulled second for the nail to be discharged. The "sequential-trip" mechanism makes it more difficult for nails to be discharged unintentionally and is generally considered to be safer.
A co-worker was using the nailer to "toenail" two pieces of lumber together at the time of the accident. The nail ricocheted off the wood, struck Slisze in the temple and penetrated his skull. Slisze filed a complaint alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty claims against Stanley. Slisze moved successfully to bifurcate the liability and damages issues.
During the liability phase of the trial, the district court dismissed Slisze's negligence claim on the grounds that the manufacturer did not have a duty to market the safer sequential-trip model exclusively, and because the strict liability claim would adequately compensate the plaintiff if the jury determined that the product was defective. The jury was not instructed as to the negligence claim, nor did the special verdict form provide any questions about negligence.
During the trial, the court admitted OSHA standards as evidence to show compliance with "government standards," creating a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness under Utah Code Ann. § 78- 15-6(3). Furthermore, the court refused to admit testimony regarding foreign safety standards that prohibited the manufacture and sale of "contact-trip" style nailers.
At the Conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Stanley, determining that the product was not defective or in a defective condition at the time it left Stanley's control. This appeal ensued.
I. Negligence
We address two issues regarding Slisze's negligence claim. The first is whether it is proper for a lower court to allow a negligence claim in conjunction with a strict liability claim under Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-6 or whether our strict liability statute subsumes all claims involving products. Whether a statute applies to a particular set of facts is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 938 (Utah 1994); see also State v. Waite, 803 P.2d 1279, 1282 (Utah 1990).
A statute will be construed according to its plain meaning. See Bonham v. Morgan, 788 P.2d 497, 500 (Utah 1989) (per curiam). Section 78-15-6 reads:
"In any action f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|