Genie Industries, Inc. v. Matak
462 S.W.3d 1 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product with high utility is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law if the risk of injury stems from an egregious and rare misuse that contravenes clear warnings and an obvious, patent danger.
Facts:
- Genie Industries, Inc. (Genie) manufactures the AWP-40S, a lightweight, portable aerial lift that requires four stabilizing outriggers to be deployed before its platform can be raised.
- The lift features an electromechanical interlock preventing the platform from rising unless the outriggers are in place, but does not deactivate if the outriggers are moved while the platform is already elevated.
- Multiple signs on the lift warned against moving it while the platform is raised, including one stating: 'DANGER: Tip-over hazard. Attempting to move the machine with the platform raised will tip the machine over and cause death or serious injury.'
- Gulf Coast Electric employees Walter Matak and James Boggan were using the lift at the Cathedral in the Pines Church to run cable.
- A church employee, John Adams, suggested they could work faster by raising the lift's leveling jacks just enough to roll it without fully lowering Matak from the platform, stating church employees did this 'all the time' at lower elevations.
- With Matak on the platform fully extended to 40 feet, Boggan raised two of the leveling jacks.
- The lift immediately became unstable, tipped over, and crashed, causing Matak's death.
Procedural Posture:
- The survivors of Walter Matak sued Genie Industries, Inc. in a Texas state trial court for wrongful death, alleging a product design defect.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, apportioning 55% of the responsibility to Genie.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs.
- Genie Industries, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
- Genie Industries, Inc., as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an aerial lift with undisputed high utility unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect when the fatal injury resulted from an intentional misuse that defied multiple, clear warnings and a patently obvious tip-over hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hecht
No. An aerial lift is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law when its significant utility is not outweighed by the risk of injury, particularly when that risk arises from a user's decision to ignore clear warnings and an obvious, patent danger. While the plaintiffs presented weak evidence of a safer alternative design, the core of the case rests on the risk-utility balancing test. The AWP-40S's utility as a compact, portable, and versatile lift is undisputed. The risk of it tipping over if the outriggers are disengaged is obvious to any observer, and this danger was reinforced by explicit warnings. The misuse in this case—moving the lift while the platform was at its maximum 40-foot height—was so egregious and rare, with no evidence of a similar prior accident in millions of uses, that the likelihood of its occurrence was 'all but nonexistent.' Because reasonable minds cannot differ on the conclusion that the lift's utility far outweighs the risk of such a remote and flagrant misuse, the product is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Justice Boyd
Yes. A reasonable jury could find the lift unreasonably dangerous because legally sufficient evidence supported its conclusion that the product's risks outweighed its utility. The determination of whether a product is unreasonably dangerous is a question of fact for the jury, and a court should not substitute its judgment when the evidence falls within a 'zone of reasonable disagreement.' The relevant risk is not just that the lift could be misused, but the likelihood that it would be misused despite warnings. There was evidence that untrained, non-professional users frequently operated the lift and commonly moved it while occupied at lower heights, creating a false sense of security. This foreseeable misuse, which could result in death or serious injury at any height, provides a sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable juror to conclude that the product's risks outweighed its undisputed utility.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in determining a product is not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, even though the risk-utility analysis is typically a question of fact for the jury. It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs in design defect cases where the injury results from an egregious and obvious misuse of a product with clear warnings and high utility. The court's focus on the extreme rarity of the specific accident, rather than the foreseeability of misuse in general, signals that manufacturers are not insurers against every conceivable misuse, particularly those that defy common sense. This precedent may narrow the scope of manufacturer liability in cases involving intentional circumvention of safety features and warnings.
Unlock the full brief for Genie Industries, Inc. v. Matak