Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corp.
739 P.2d 1177, 48 Wash. App. 432 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer is not relieved of liability for a design defect as a matter of law by an employer's subsequent product modification if the modification was a foreseeable intervening act and did not create a different type of harm than the original defect.
Facts:
- Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corporation (Dreis) designed and manufactured a multi-functional press brake.
- The press could be activated by either a two-button control requiring both hands (a safety feature) or a foot treadle that left the operator's hands free.
- Dreis sold the press without point-of-operation guards, which would physically prevent an operator's hands from entering the die area.
- The press was eventually sold to Comet Corporation, Steve Anderson's employer.
- Comet disconnected the two-button control and rewired the press to be activated by a single button on a flexible electric cord, which also left one of the operator's hands free.
- Comet did not install any point-of-operation guards after modifying the press.
- Steve Anderson was injured when he reached into the point-of-operation area to clear debris and his stomach accidentally hit the single-button activator, causing the press's ram to descend on his hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve Anderson sued Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corporation in a Washington superior court (trial court) under theories of breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability.
- Dreis filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the employer's modification was a superseding cause of the injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dreis, dismissing Anderson's action.
- Anderson (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Washington (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's modification of a machine's activation system constitute a superseding cause that, as a matter of law, relieves the original manufacturer of liability for a design defect related to the lack of safety guards?
Opinions:
Majority - Munson, J.
No. An employer's modification of a machine does not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law when the foreseeability of such an intervention is a question of fact for the jury. A jury could find it was reasonably foreseeable that a purchaser would use an alternative activation method, such as the one Comet installed, especially since the press was designed with an alternative treadle system that also defeated the two-button safety feature and left the operator's hands free and unguarded. The modification did not introduce a new type of harm; it only changed the manner in which the foreseeable harm—injury to an operator's hands in the unguarded point-of-operation—occurred. Therefore, the causal chain between Dreis's original design defect (the lack of point-of-operation guards) and Anderson's injury was not necessarily broken.
Dissenting - Green, J.
Yes. The employer's modification was the sole and proximate cause of the injury, relieving the manufacturer of liability as a matter of law. The accident was not caused by a design defect related to the foot treadle, which was not in use. Instead, it was caused directly by Comet's negligent modification, which created a new and distinct danger of accidental activation by a dangling button that could be bumped by the operator's body. This specific, negligent alteration was the superseding cause of the accident, breaking the causal link to any original design choice by the manufacturer.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of the superseding cause doctrine in products liability, particularly in the context of workplace machinery modifications. The court's holding makes it more difficult for manufacturers to obtain summary judgment by blaming an employer's subsequent alterations. By framing the foreseeability of such modifications as a question of fact for the jury, the decision reinforces the manufacturer's non-delegable duty to design a reasonably safe product, including anticipating that safety features might be bypassed or altered by end-users. This precedent strengthens claims for plaintiffs injured by modified industrial equipment, forcing manufacturers to consider a wider range of potential user behaviors in their initial designs.
