 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Crown Equipment Corp.10/27/2005
reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller, assuming that the manufacturer or seller knew of its dangerous condition.
Id. at (8).
In determining whether a product is defective or unreasonably dangerous as to warrant liability, "the state of scientific and technological knowledge available to the manufacturer or seller at the time the product was placed on the market, rather than at the time of injury , is applicable." Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-105(b) (1980). Moreover, " onsideration is given . . . to the customary designs, methods, standards and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting and testing by other manufacturers or sellers of similar products." Id. Evidence of a better, safer, or different design that might have avoided injury is insufficient to establish a design defect. Shoemake v. Omniquip Int'l Inc., 152 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). A manufacturer is not required to design a product that is perfect, accident-proof, or incapable of causing injury. See id. Instead, the plaintiff must show that the product was "unsafe for normal or anticipatable handling." Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102(2). The plaintiff also must trace his or her injury to the defect. King v. Danek Med., Inc., 37 S.W.3d 429, 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
In granting Crown's motion for a directed verdict, the trial court found that absent expert testimony, the plaintiffs failed to offer evidence that Crown's forklifts were defective. The plaintiffs presented evidence through expert testimony, which we have held to be admissible, that Crown's stand-up forklifts were unsafe for normal and reasonably anticipated handling and use due to the absence of a door. The plaintiffs' experts further testified that the injuries to Mr. Brown and Mrs. Reynolds would not have occurred had the forklifts they were operating been equipped with doors. Upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties, we conclude that reasonable minds could disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to present proof of a defect.
In determining whether a product is unreasonably dangerous, we have interpreted the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978 as providing for two tests: the consumer expectation test and the prudent manufacturer test. Ray ex rel. Holman, 925 S.W.2d at 531. These two tests are not exclusive of one another, and either or both are applicable to claims of unreasonably dangerous products. Jackson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 60 S.W.3d 800, 806 (Tenn. 2001). In the present case, the plaintiffs relied upon the prudent manufacturer test in contending that Crown's stand-up forklifts were unreasonably dangerous.
Under the prudent manufacturer test, liability is imposed "in circumstances in which a reasonably prudent manufacturer with knowledge of a product's dangerousness would not place the product in the stream of commerce." Ray ex rel. Holman, 925 S.W.2d at 532. Thus, the prudent manufacturer test imputes knowledge of the product's condition to the manufacturer and requires proof concerning the reasonableness of the decision of the manufacturer to market the product in light of this knowledge. Id. at 530-31. The buyer's expectations are irrelevant. Id. at 531.
Application of the prudent manufacturer test requires a risk- utility balancing of a number of factors, including (1) the product's usefulness and desirability; (2) the product's safety aspects-the likelihood and probable seriousness of injury; (3) the availability of a substitute product that would safely meet the same need; (4) the manufacturer's ability to eliminate the product's unsafe character without hindering its usefulness or causing the maintenance of its u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|