 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carrillo v. Acf Industries Inc.6/11/1998
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION *
(Super. Ct. No. BC083711)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Judge Alban I. Niles. Affirmed.
Defendant ACF Industries, Inc. (ACF), appeals from an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and from a judgment on special verdict, awarding plaintiff Jose Carrillo $1,429,274 for personal injuries he sustained when he fell from the top of a railroad hopper car manufactured by defendant. The jury found defendant liable under product liability theories of design defect and failure to warn. Defendant contends it is entitled to reversal and a judgment in its favor, first because the subject matter of plaintiff's claims is preempted by federal law, and second, because plaintiff failed as a matter of California law to establish design defect, failure to warn, or causation. Alternatively, defendant seeks reversal and a new trial on grounds of instructional error. We affirm.
FACTS
The accident from which this action arose occurred on June 30, 1992. Plaintiff, a truck driver employed by Amoco Chemical Company, was engaged in delivering polystyrene pellets to a hopper car operated by Wincup Holdings, Inc. Delivery involved transferring the pellets from plaintiff's truck, via a heavy steel hose, through hatches on top of the car, which was 15½ feet high. On the day before and the morning of the accident, the actual loading was conducted by Wincup's employees, who took the hose from plaintiff and inserted it into one of the hatches, securing it with a rope plaintiff furnished. Plaintiff would then turn on the truck's pump.
After plaintiff started the pump for the second delivery of June 30, the Wincup employees told him they were going to lunch and would return in about 30 minutes. They did not return then, and plaintiff noticed that the pellets were overflowing out of the top of the car. He shut off the pump and waited about 20 minutes more, but the employees still did not return. Believing that the product had been filling unevenly and that the hose had to be repositioned, plaintiff decided to attempt to do that himself.
Plaintiff ascended the car and untied the rope from the hatch. Using the rope, he began to pull the heavy hose up. The rope came free of the hose, and plaintiff was spun backwards and off the top of the car. He struck the nearby facility wall with both hands, and then fell to the ground. Plaintiff suffered multiple fractures of his left wrist, left leg, and right heel, necessitating extensive surgeries including bone and skin grafts.
Plaintiff sued Wincup, for negligence, and defendant, for negligence, breach of warranty, and product liability. Wincup settled the case. During trial, plaintiff dismissed all causes of action except those based on product liability. Plaintiff's claim of defective design was that the top of the hopper car should have been equipped either with a 42-inch guard rail, retractable or stationary, or with a lower railing to which a lanyard and safety harness could be attached, permitting a worker to work harnessed. Plaintiff also claimed failure to warn, in that the design for harnessing should have been accompanied by an illustrated sign, warning workers not to work on top without such "fall protection."
Defendant moved for non-suit and later for directed verdict, on grounds plaintiff's claims of product defect were preempted by federal laws regulating railroad safety, and also that plaintiff's proof of his claims was insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motions. By special verdict, the jury found that there had been both a design defect and a failure to wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|