Juan Moran v. The Raymond Corporation
484 F.2d 1008, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1422, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7892 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a strict liability action assumes the risk of injury, barring recovery as a matter of law, when their own testimony demonstrates a subjective knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of a specific danger, and they voluntarily proceed in disregard of that known danger.
Facts:
- The Raymond Corporation manufactured a sideloader lift truck.
- Juan Moran, an employee at Central Steel and Wire Company, had operated the sideloader for approximately three months.
- Moran was instructed during his training to always operate the sideloader's controls from within the operator's cage.
- While using the sideloader to place a tray on a high rack, some wire rods on the tray slipped.
- To correct the problem, Moran left the operator's cage and stood on a platform on the lift side of the equipment.
- While standing in this position, Moran reached into the operator's cage and pulled a control lever to lower the forks.
- Moran knew that a descending crossbar would strike him if he did not withdraw his hand quickly.
- The descending crossbar caught and seriously injured Moran's right arm.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Moran filed a complaint against The Raymond Corporation in federal district court, alleging negligence and strict liability.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, Raymond moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court took under advisement.
- The jury returned a verdict for Moran, awarding him $250,000, and answered special interrogatories finding no assumption of risk or misuse.
- After the verdict, the district court denied Raymond's pending motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment for Moran.
- Raymond filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The Raymond Corporation (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Juan Moran as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the plaintiff assume the risk as a matter of law, thus barring his recovery in a strict liability action, when he knowingly operated a machine from a dangerous position contrary to his training, fully aware that he could be injured if he was not fast enough?
Opinions:
Majority - Pell, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The plaintiff assumed the risk as a matter of law, which bars his recovery. Under Illinois law, a plaintiff in a strict liability case is barred from recovery if he knows a product is in a dangerous condition and proceeds in disregard of this known danger. The test is subjective, focusing on the plaintiff's actual knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the danger. Here, Moran's own testimony established his subjective awareness of the risk. He admitted that he had been trained to operate the controls from inside the cage and, most significantly, testified that he knew the descending crossbar would hit him if he did not move his hand quickly. This admission demonstrated that he understood the specific hazard, took a calculated risk, and proceeded anyway, which constitutes assumption of risk as a matter of law and overwhelmingly favors the defendant under the Illinois 'Pedrick' standard.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the assumption of risk defense in strict liability tort actions under Illinois law. It demonstrates that while the test for assumption of risk is subjective and ordinarily a question for the jury, a plaintiff's own clear testimony admitting knowledge of the specific danger can be sufficient to establish the defense as a matter of law. The decision reinforces that assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery in strict liability, distinct from simple contributory negligence, and empowers courts to overturn jury verdicts where the plaintiff's own evidence of subjective awareness is overwhelming.
