 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. Studer Inc.12/18/1998
t abuse its discretion when it discounted Mr. Hathaway's expert opinion.
Campbell also claims that the district court ignored the OSHA accident report which stated the opinion of the investigators that an automatic shutoff would have prevented the injury . This evidence, however, does not establish that such a switch was or is feasible for the C530A. Both OSHA investigators testified they had no formal training or direct experience in mechanical or design engineering for a motor vehicle or piece of heavy equipment, and no personal knowledge whether a shutoff system had ever been designed for equipment such as the C530A. Both investigators, however, stated there were no violations in the maintenance or condition of the compactor, and no requirement that the machine be fitted with an automatic shutoff switch.
The mere fact that an injury occurred is insufficient, in and of itself, to show the existence of a product defect. West v. Deere & Co., 582 N. E. 2d 685, 686 (Ill. 1991); Moomey v. Massey Ferguson, Inc., 429 F. 2d 1184, 1186 (10th Cir. 1970). " party may not rely upon Conclusions nor can they be employed in disposing of a motion for summary judgment." Maxted, 527 P. 2d at 834. The plaintiff must offer some admissible evidence that the product was not reasonably safe for its intended or foreseeable use. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue, 674 P. 2d 1276, 1281 (Wyo. 1983); O'Donnell v. City of Casper, 696 P. 2d 1278, 1286 (Wyo. 1985); Caldwell v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., 648 P. 2d 519, 525-26 (Wyo. 1982). After careful review of the entire record, it is clear that Campbell's case rested entirely on unsupported speculation by Mr. Hathaway. Campbell presented no admissible evidence which would indicate that the C530A was not reasonably safe when designed and manufactured; and, therefore, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellees.
CONCLUSION
Other than the unsupported conclusory statements of Campbell's expert, no evidence was presented which would establish, at the time of manufacture, the existence of a feasible, safer design for the C530A compactor. Further, Campbell failed to show that the absence of safety devices rendered the machine not reasonably safe for its foreseeable or intended use. Consequently, the district court's Order Granting Summary Judgment to All Defendants is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|