Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation
2022 WI 109 (2022)
Rule of Law:
Wisconsin's product liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1), requires a plaintiff claiming a strict liability design defect to prove both that a reasonable alternative design could have reduced foreseeable harm and that the product's defective condition rendered it 'unreasonably dangerous' under the common law consumer-contemplation test.
Facts:
- Matthew Murphy worked as a line technician for Wisconsin Power & Light Company (WPL).
- On May 14, 2013, Murphy was tasked with independently loading used utility poles from the side of a road onto a trailer bed.
- Murphy used "Dixie" style tongs, manufactured by Columbus McKinnon Corporation (CMC), attached to a truck-mounted boom featuring a winch, to lift the poles.
- Dixie tongs resemble old-fashioned ice tongs, with a pointed prong on each side that closes like scissors and embeds into the pole when lifted.
- WPL provided regular training to its linemen on the appropriate procedure for attaching tongs, including identifying the pole's balance point and grasping the lower third of its circumference, and performing a test lift.
- Line technicians were trained not to stand under suspended poles or raise loads overhead, but had to remain in close proximity to right an askew pole.
- Murphy attached Dixie tongs to an old, weathered, hard utility pole, and once hoisted in the air, the pole came loose from the tongs and struck him, causing severe injuries.
- CMC marketed Dixie tongs as "pole tongs" for lifting logs and poles, and Murphy's employer had purchased them for that intended use.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Murphy brought a products liability lawsuit against Columbus McKinnon Corporation (CMC) in Sauk County Circuit Court.
- CMC moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied twice, finding genuine disputes of material fact.
- The circuit court, sua sponte, reconsidered CMC's motion for summary judgment at a hearing on motions in limine and granted summary judgment for CMC.
- Murphy, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed in part (regarding an abandoned alternative design theory) and reversed in part (regarding the Hogg-Davis jaw-style tongs alternative design theory), concluding there were genuine disputes of material fact, and remanded the case.
- Columbus McKinnon Corporation, as defendant-respondent-petitioner, sought review before the Wisconsin Supreme 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 Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1), Wisconsin's product liability statute for design defects, require a plaintiff to prove both a reasonable alternative design (similar to the Restatement (Third)'s risk-utility test) and that the product is unreasonably dangerous under the common law consumer-contemplation test, and if so, are there genuine disputes of material fact to preclude summary judgment on Matthew Murphy's strict liability and negligent design claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Patience Drake Roggensack, J.
Yes, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1) requires a plaintiff to prove both a reasonable alternative design and that the product is unreasonably dangerous under the consumer-contemplation test, and there are genuine disputes of material fact to preclude summary judgment. The Court, in its first interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 895.047 (created in 2011), affirms the court of appeals' reversal of summary judgment. The statute's plain language requires a plaintiff to establish "all" five enumerated criteria for a strict liability design defect claim. Paragraph (1)(a) adopts language from Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2(b), requiring proof of a reasonable alternative design and that its omission renders the product "not reasonably safe." However, paragraphs (1)(b), (c), (d), and (e) codify established common law principles from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. Specifically, (1)(b)'s requirement that the "defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous" explicitly codifies the common law consumer-contemplation test as set out in Vincer and Green. The Court rejects CMC's argument for a wholesale adoption of Restatement (Third) § 2, emphasizing the statute's clear retention of common law terms and the legislative intent to "return tort law to its historical, common law roots." Additionally, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(6) explicitly preserves common law negligence and breach of warranty claims. Applying these requirements, the Court finds Matthew Murphy presented sufficient expert evidence (Dr. John DeRosia) regarding the Hogg-Davis jaw-style tongs as a reasonable alternative design (meeting § 895.047(1)(a)) and that the Dixie tongs were unreasonably dangerous (meeting § 895.047(1)(b)) because an ordinary consumer would not anticipate the specific dangers posed by the tongs' design. Given multiple genuine disputes of material fact concerning Murphy's actions, the tongs' performance, and the apportionment of negligence, summary judgment is inappropriate for both the strict liability and negligent design claims, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Concurring - Jill J. Karofsky, J.
Yes, Murphy's strict liability design defect claim and common law negligence claim survive summary judgment because material issues of fact exist for each element. Justice Karofsky concurs with the majority's outcome but clarifies the interplay between the statute and common law. She explains that prior to 2011, the common law consumer-contemplation test applied to both the "defective" and "unreasonably dangerous" elements of a design defect claim. However, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a) abrogates the common law consumer-contemplation test for the "defect" element, replacing it with the reasonable alternative design test found in Restatement (Third) of Torts. In contrast, § 895.047(1)(b) codifies the "unreasonably dangerous" element, which continues to be defined by the common law consumer-contemplation test. She details how Murphy's expert, Dr. DeRosia, provided sufficient evidence regarding the Hogg-Davis tongs' multiple teeth, superior clamping force, and locking mechanism to create a material issue of fact for the "defect" element (§ 895.047(1)(a)). For the "unreasonably dangerous" element (§ 895.047(1)(b)), Murphy's arguments about the Dixie tongs' lack of redundancy, inadequate clamping force, and absence of a locking mechanism, combined with expert testimony, raise factual questions for a jury as to what an ordinary utility worker would reasonably contemplate regarding the tongs' failure rate, especially with worn poles.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Brian Hagedorn, J.
No, Murphy's strict liability claim cannot proceed because he failed to establish that the Dixie tongs were unreasonably dangerous, but his negligence claim can proceed. Justice Hagedorn agrees that Murphy's negligence claim should proceed but dissents regarding the strict liability claim. He concurs with the majority's interpretation that Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a) requires a reasonable alternative design (from Restatement (Third)) and § 895.047(1)(b) requires proof of an "unreasonably dangerous" product under the common law consumer-contemplation test. However, he argues that Murphy failed to present any evidence that the Dixie tongs were "unreasonably dangerous" under the consumer-contemplation test, which, for a specialized product, focuses on the objective awareness and knowledge of specially trained workers like Murphy. He contends that while the Dixie tongs may pose inherent dangers, Murphy's evidence only demonstrated those inherent risks or potential for product improvement, not that the danger was beyond what a trained line technician would reasonably anticipate and appreciate. He notes Murphy received extensive safety training and that the record lacks evidence of other injuries or lawsuits related to Dixie tongs, concluding that merely showing a product is dangerous is insufficient; it must be unexpectedly dangerous to a trained user.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it provides the first judicial interpretation of Wisconsin's product liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.047, since its enactment in 2011. By affirming that plaintiffs in strict liability design defect cases must prove both a reasonable alternative design and that the product is 'unreasonably dangerous' under the common law consumer-contemplation test, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has established a unique hybrid standard. This dual requirement maintains elements of both the Restatement (Second) and (Third) of Torts, clarifying that Wisconsin retains its common law roots in product liability, preventing a wholesale shift to a pure risk-utility standard. This ruling impacts how manufacturers design products and how plaintiffs will litigate design defect cases in Wisconsin, necessitating evidence on both alternative design feasibility and consumer expectations.
