 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Long Mfg. NC Inc.8/10/1998
Appeal From Allendale County Jackson v. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge
Heard May 7, 1998
REVERSED AND REMANDED
The personal representative of Otis Allen, Sr. (Allen) brought this products liability action against Long Manufacturing (Long) under the theories of strict liability and negligence. In deciding Long's motion for summary judgment the trial Judge found for Long as a matter of law on all of Allen's causes of action. Allen appeals. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
The facts surrounding Allen's death are not in dispute. Allen was using a portable grain auger that did not belong to him to load grain onto a grain drill. A grain auger is a metal chute which conveys grain from its lower end to the top end, where it can be discharged into a bin or other container. The auger at issue is portable, meaning it has wheels on it, and by lifting its lower end it can be moved. The center of gravity is such that the lower end remains on the ground if it is positioned on level ground and there is no material in the chute. However, the center of gravity can change as material such as grain is conveyed to the top end. The auger can become unstable at any time during operation if no new material is fed into the chute at the lower end because of the weight shift toward the discharge end of the chute. The discharge end of the auger was 23 feet in the air at the time of the accident. After several minutes of operation, Allen was standing directly beneath the discharge end of the auger when the auger upended and struck him on take head, fatally injuring him. He had not anchored the lower end or supported the discharge end before using the auger. Allen's estate brought a wrongful death and pain and suffering action against Long, the manufacturer of the auger, and Glen Kinard, the auger's owner.
The auger at issue displayed a warning label. This label is in two parts. On the upper label, the word "CAUTION" precedes eleven specific instructions, including:
"1. Read and understand owners manual before operating."
"4. Make certain everyone is clear before operation or moving the auger."
"7. Support discharge and or anchor intake to prevent upending."
"At the bottom of this portion, the label states: "FAILURE TO HEED MAY RESULT IN PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH." On the lower label, the word "WARNING" is followed by:"
"YOU MUST NOT OPERATE THIS AUGER UNLESS:"
"1 . You are trained in its safe operation and"
"2. You know and follow manufacturer's safety and operating instructions, your employer's work rules and applicable regulations."
"AN UNTRAINED OPERATOR SUBJECTS HIMSELF AND OTHERS TO SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH."
Long moved for summary judgment on the ground that the auger was not unreasonably dangerous because of the warning labels, which were adequate as a matter of law. Long also asserted that if Allen had followed the warnings, the accident would not have happened. The trial court granted Long's motion.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The trial court granted summary judgment for Long on Allen's negligence and strict liability causes of action, holding, 1) the auger's warnings were adequate as a matter of law, and, therefore the auger was not in an "unreasonably dangerous" condition; 2) the adequate warning fulfilled Long's duty of care to produce a safe auger; and 3) Allen's failure to follow the warning was the proximate cause of his death. Construing this court's decision in Bragg v. Hi- Ranger, 319 ID S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1996), to hold that a warning meeting recognized industry standards is adequate as a matt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|