 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fisher v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust2/4/2002
In this case, the widow of a man burned to death by hot oil expelled by a voltage regulator brought a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the regulator and the purported successor in interest of the manufacturer. On a postjudgment motion, the trial court ruled that (1) plaintiff was entitled to relief from defendants' requests for admission that were deemed admitted, (2) without the deemed admissions, summary judgment for defendant Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust (Allis Trust) was no longer appropriate, and (3) defendant Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. (Siemens) remained entitled to summary judgment because it was not a successor in interest of Allis- Chalmers Corporation (Allis-Chalmers). All parties appeal. We conclude plaintiff should be relieved of the admissions, Allis Trust is not entitled to summary judgment, and the summary judgment in favor of Siemens must be reversed.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
I. The Accident and Claims Asserted
On March 27, 1996, Norval Fisher was working as a substation maintenance electrician for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E; and investigated a problem with a load tap changer on a type AFR 12,000- volt, 3-phase voltage regulator (AFR Regulator) manufactured in approximately 1966 by Allis-Chalmers. Norval Fisher was fatally injured when hot or burning oil was expelled through the tap load changer's pressure release valve and struck him while he was standing at the AFR Regulator's control panel.
Norval Fisher's widow, Marianna Fisher (Fisher), sued Allis Trust and Siemens (collectively, defendants) alleging a products liability claim on the grounds the AFR Regulator was defective because (1) the pressure release value was positioned in such a manner that oil expelled from the load tap changer compartment would hit individuals standing at the control panel; and (2) the internal components of the load tap changer became pitted, which resulted in the ignition of the oil expelled from the compartment.
A. Defendants' Defense on the Merits
Allis Trust and Siemens defend the action on the basis that the accident was not caused by either a design or manufacturing defect in the AFR Regulator and that the sole cause of the accident that resulted in Mr. Fisher's death was PG&E;s negligent maintenance, repair and inspection of the AFR Regulator. Defendants contend (1) pitting, and the resulting electrical arcing, is a normal consequence of nearly 30 years of use; and (2) PG&E;modified the load tap changer compartment by permanently sealing and capping its upper breather opening, thereby preventing the escape of air and gases from the compartment. Defendants contend the ignition of the oil expelled by the compartment was most likely caused by the buildup of combustible gases due to the plugging of the upper breather opening. In addition, Siemens contends it is not a successor in interest of Allis-Chalmers and, therefore, is not liable for claims related to the AFR Regulator.
B. Fisher's Factual Contentions
As one of the grounds for opposing the merits of defendants' motions for summary judgment, Fisher asserts:
"The defects identified by Plaintiff were caused by the poor design and substandard manufacture of the AFR Regulator. The load tap changer compartment was not negligently modified when the upper breather opening was plugged, as this was done by the factory. The pitting of the dial switch contacts was not caused by weak contact pressure due to wear and tear during the equipment's nearly 30 years of service, it was caused by an improper design and poor workmanship in its manufacture. Further, the defect was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|