 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perez v. John Deere Construction Equipment Co.6/30/2005
In October 1998, plaintiff Ernesto Perez became the 42d person known by John Deere Construction Equipment Company (Deere) to have been injured after becoming entangled in the head of a John Deere cotton picker. Plaintiff sued Deere, claiming the design was defective because the machine did not have an emergency shutoff switch that plaintiff could have reached after becoming entangled. In completing a special verdict form, the jury found that Deere was not negligent and the cotton picker's design was not defective.
Plaintiff appeals, claiming reversible error related to (1) rulings made during voir dire, (2) limits placed on the admission of evidence of other cotton picker entanglement accidents, (3) other evidentiary rulings, (4) a confusing form of special verdict, (5) failure to instruct the jury under the consumer expectations test for design defects, and (6) the award of certain costs to Deere.
The judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
Plaintiff began working for Kercher Harvesting, Inc. as a mechanic's assistant in 1989 and left in 1996. Plaintiff was rehired by Kercher Harvesting, Inc. as a mechanic and resumed working on October 27, 1998. The following morning, plaintiff and mechanic's assistant Angel Mendoza were assigned to check on a group of seven cotton pickers to make sure they were performing properly and ready for the day's operation. The cotton pickers were lined up in a row at the end of a field located in the Five Points area of Fresno County, California.
When plaintiff arrived at the field, he began checking the first cotton picker, a two-row, John Deere Model 9910, and then started it. When Mendoza arrived, he started the second machine. Plaintiff engaged the picking head on the cotton picker, left the cab to get in front of the cotton picker, observed the moving parts of the head, and determined an adjustment was needed. Plaintiff testified that, to adjust a pressure plate door, he positioned himself between the stalk lifters and stood on the waffle plate or shoe. In this position, plaintiff was exposed to the moving parts where the cotton plants entered the picker. Plaintiff testified that a safety decal was on the machine and he did not ignore the danger of the moving spindles.
Plaintiff testified that he made the adjustments and when he was getting down, his right foot slipped and was caught in the moving spindles. Once he was caught in the head, plaintiff looked at the picture in the safety decal that was in front of him and "I remember just picturing, just saying to myself, not in a million years I would picture me, myself-that that would be me in that picture."
When Mendoza noticed plaintiff was caught, plaintiff's right leg had been pulled into the machine up to the knee. By the time Mendoza turned off the engine, the upper portion of plaintiff's thigh had been pulled into the cotton picker. Plaintiff estimated that he was stuck for about two and a half hours before he was freed and flown by helicopter to a hospital. The injuries to plaintiff's leg were severe and a psychiatrist opined that plaintiff would be on medication for depression for a long time.
Plaintiff supported his contention that the cotton picker should have had an emergency shutoff switch by presenting the testimony of Danny Willard. Willard was in business with his father and, at one time, they operated 16 John Deere cotton pickers. After one of their employees, Kenneth Smith, became entangled in the head of a cotton picker, Willard modified the cotton pickers in 1979 or 1980 by installing two toggle switches that allowed someone on the ground in front of the machine to shut it off. The switch was wired to the inject
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|