8/6/2009
Wyoming Supreme Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Mining Machinery Manufacturer
Richard Mincer, Richard Schneebeck and Lindsay Woznick recently obtained a favorable ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court affirming summary judgment in a products liability case. Hirst Applegate represented a mining machinery manufacturer that manufactured a roof bolter used in underground mines. The plaintiff worked as a roof bolter operator in a Wyoming trona mine. A roof bolter’s function is to secure the roof of fresh cuts in the mine to guard against roof collapses. The plaintiff allegedly experienced difficulty with the roof bolter and, as he attempted to operate the machine from the chassis, he became stuck under unbolted roof. While attempting to free the roof bolter, a 4 foot by 15 foot piece of slab fell from the mine roof and rendered the plaintiff a quadriplegic. The plaintiff contended that his injuries would have been avoided or at least far less severe had the manufacturer designed the roof bolter with a canopy on the chassis. The plaintiff asserted that the manufacturer of the roof bolter was negligent for failing to equip its roof bolter with a protective canopy; failing to warn of the alleged defect; failing to retrofit the roof bolter with a canopy; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the theory of strict liability. The client offered a chassis canopy as optional equipment, but the buyer declined to purchase the option. The Court held that the manufacturer owed no duty to protect the plaintiff from anything but hidden defects in its product and owed no duty to warn the plaintiff of anything but concealed dangers in the use of its product. In so holding, the Court found that the manufacture and design of the bolter did not cause the roof to collapse, and, in any event, the danger of unsupported roof falling in an underground mine was open and obvious. Therefore, as a matter of law, the manufacturer owed not duty to the plaintiff to manufactures its roof bolter with a chassis canopy as standard equipment . The court further held that the manufacturer did not owe the plaintiff a duty to retrofit, and that summary judgment was proper on the strict liability claim as the roof bolter was not defective as designed and sold. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the District Court`s summary judgment.
|
|
