BARRY V. QUALITY STEEL PRODUCTS, INC.
820 A.2d 258 (2003)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Barry (P) appealed a judgment, which submitted a superseding cause
instruction to the jury, from which the jury found in favor of Quality (D).
FACTS: Ps were employed as carpenters by DeLuca. Ps were putting shingles on a roof when
the platform staging on which they were working collapsed, causing Ps to fall to the ground
and sustain severe injuries. Immediately prior to the collapse, Ps were working on a wooden
plank attached to the roof by roof brackets designed and manufactured by D and purchased
from Ring's End. The planking suddenly fell out from under them and they fell to the ground.
Almost immediately after the plaintiffs fell, Gene Marini, the general superintendent at
DeLuca, discovered one of the roof brackets used by the plaintiffs in a distorted condition
on the ground near where they fell. Ps brought this product liability action against D
alleging that it had designed and manufactured defective roof brackets, which were utilized
by Ps in the hanging of shingles. Prior to trial Ps filed a motion in limine asking the
trial court to exclude evidence of any alleged negligence on the part of DeLuca , Ps'
employer, and to deny Ds' request to charge the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause.
Ds introduced evidence, through expert testimony, that DeLuca had violated the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations by failing to provide
additional fall protection for Ps while they were working on the roof. The trial court
instructed the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause. D got the verdict and Ps appealed.
Ps claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the doctrine of superseding
cause because: (1) the plaintiffs' injuries were not outside the scope of the risk created
by Ds' misconduct in manufacturing and selling a defective product; and (2) any negligence
on the part of DeLuca was not the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries. Ds claim
the combined negligence of Ps, DeLuca and Manizza, constituted sufficient evidence of a
superseding cause.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment