Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-CV-4160.
August 23, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of August 2004, following oral argument on the outstanding motions in this matter and upon consideration of the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) filed by Defendants on December 31, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The Plaintiff was injured while operating an industrial punch press by placing his hand in the press to manually adjust the metal sheet. He inadvertently pushed the foot petal which lowers the press and four fingers were amputated. The press is equipped with a shadow IV model light curtain which sends a signal indicating whether the machine is obstructed. A red light indicates an obstruction while a green light indicates that the press surface is clear of obstacles. According to Defendants, the curtain comes with instructions that clearly indicate that no adjustment should be made manually to the press, but that either double palm buttons or a foot petal are preferred means of adjusting. D's Mot. at 5. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's employer ("Baldwin") installed, understood, and trained all employees in the machine's usage and the light curtain's function. The curtain also comes equipped with a muting package which allows an operator to bypass the curtain while the press is in a non-hazardous phase of the press cycle. According to Defendants, the muting package comes with instructions that the press should not be muted under certain circumstances; Baldwin installed and maintained the muting package. Id.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue of material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In reviewing the record, "a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor." Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the record discloses no genuine issues as to any material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986). There is a genuine issue for trial "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Such affirmative evidence — regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial — must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance." Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989).
The Court must determine as a matter of law whether or not the alleged product is defective in order for the issue of causation to proceed to the jury. Whether a product is defective under the facts alleged by the plaintiff is initially a question of law to be answered by the trial judge. Nowak By and Through Nowak v. Faberge USA Inc., 32 F.3d 755, 757 (3d Cir. 1994) citing Mackowick v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., A.2d 100, 102 (1990). The supplier of a product is the guarantor of its safety. A product is considered to be defective "where the product left the supplier's control lacking any element necessary to make it safe for its intended use or possessing any feature that renders it unsafe for the intended use." Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 391 A.2d 1020, 1027 (1978). The determination of whether a product is defective under Pennsylvania law is a two-stage inquiry. Id. 391 A.2d at 1025-26; Griggs v. BIC, 981 F.2d 1429, 1432 (3d Cir. 1992). A defect may be in the warnings given for the use of the product as well as in the design of that product. A product can be held to be defective "if it is distributed without sufficient warnings to notify the ultimate user of the dangers inherent in the product."Mackowick, 575 A.2d at 102. In Mackowick, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed Azzarello, explicitly holding that the determination that a product is defective because of inadequate warnings is initially a question of law to be answered by the trial judge. Id. See also Mazur v. Merck Co., 964 F.2d 1348, 1366 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 974 (1992).
The determination need not be explicit and need not be made at the summary judgment stage. In Nowak, the Third Circuit concluded that "the district court, by sending the case to the jury, implicitly made the necessary threshold ruling required under Azzarello. Nowak, 32 F.3d at 758. If, however, a party requests it, the trial judge should be required to articulate the reasons for purposes of social policy. Shetterly v. Crown Controls Corp., 719 F. Supp. 385, 388 (W.D.Pa. 1989) (citingDambacher, 485 A.2d at 423 n. 6). The Third Circuit urged the importance of making explicit evidentiary rulings in order to better amplify the record for purposes of appeal. "We once again urge that implicit rulings not be utilized. Indeed, we have previously criticized a district court for making the determination that a product was defective in the form of an evidentiary ruling." Nowak, 32 F.3d at 758.
The light curtain prevents the machine from functioning if the light is pierced or obstructed. Hrg. Tr. at 14. The muting package, sold in conjunction with the light curtain, essentially renders the curtain inoperable by allowing the press to function while piercing the light with a utensil, for example. Id. Even if the Court accepted the adequacy of the warnings provided for the light curtain, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the warnings adequately alerted the ultimate user, the Plaintiff, to the relationship between the light curtain, the muting package, and their combined effect on the operation of the press. That is, when examined independent of the industrial punch press and muting package, the lighting curtain may not be inherently dangerous or defective; similarly, the muting package, when examined separately may survive the risk utility analysis. But, because the two function in tandem, a bifurcated discussion of their relative safety is unsound. Due to the outstanding ambiguity pertaining to the interplay between these two devices, the Court cannot engage in a meaningful risk utility analysis of either mechanism. As such, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, whether either product is defectively designed at the summary judgment stage. The Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.
During the course of his employment, Plaintiff was taught that if his hand obstructed the press, the light curtain would prevent its operation. Pl's. Dep. at 111-113. Plaintiff also indicated that he never received hand tools or specific instructions with respect to the palm buttons or the foot petal.Id. The Plaintiff did not read the warnings on the 50-year-old press because the curtain had been installed in the 1990's and he believed the machine had been updated for safety. Id. In addition, the employee responsible for training Plaintiff admitted to adjusting the press manually himself. Pl's Resp at 4.