Pasillas v. Okuma American Corp.
946 F.Supp. 2d 762, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63051, 2013 WL 1858764 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff does not assume the risk of injury as a matter of law when proceeding with a dangerous task after receiving incorrect assurances of safety from the defendant manufacturer, especially when the plaintiff's only alternative is to abandon their job. The question of whether a plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed a specific risk is a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, an experienced service engineer, was sent to repair a malfunctioning machine manufactured by defendant, Okuma.
- The repair required removing a part called a 'drawbar,' which plaintiff knew could come in one of two designs: a 'helical spring' design that is under pressure and requires a special compression tool for safe removal, or a 'Bellville washer' design that is not under pressure.
- Plaintiff felt and confirmed with a tool that the drawbar was under pressure, but he did not have the required compression tool.
- Plaintiff called Okuma's technical support and spoke with an employee, Dave Vega, who, after consulting design drawings and an advisor, incorrectly assured plaintiff that the machine had the non-pressurized Bellville washer design and should not be under pressure.
- Plaintiff expressed that he did not think it was safe to proceed and requested the tool, but was told he could not get it.
- Relying on Vega's expertise, plaintiff proceeded with the repair after being told to 'be cautious,' whereupon the pressurized drawbar shot out.
- The force of the released drawbar caused plaintiff to fall backward and hit his neck on the machine, resulting in injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against defendant Okuma in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting claims for negligence and strict product liability.
- Defendant Okuma filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff had assumed the risk of his injury.
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 a plaintiff's awareness of some general danger establish the defense of assumption of risk as a matter of law, thereby entitling the defendant to summary judgment on negligence and strict liability claims, even when the defendant manufacturer provided specific, but incorrect, assurances that the product was safe?
Opinions:
Majority - Bucklo, J.
No. A plaintiff's general awareness of a risk does not establish the defense of assumption of risk as a matter of law when the defendant provides specific, yet incorrect, assurances of safety. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the danger was truly 'apparent' to the plaintiff and whether he 'voluntarily' chose to encounter it. The plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's superior expertise and misinformation creates a question for the jury. Furthermore, a plaintiff's acceptance of risk is not considered voluntary if their only alternative is to not perform their job, which the defendant has no right to prevent. The defendant's misinformation could also be construed by a jury as an 'inadequate warning,' supporting a claim for strict product liability.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces that secondary implied assumption of risk is a fact-intensive defense that is difficult for a defendant to win at the summary judgment stage. It highlights that an employee's decision to proceed with a dangerous task is not necessarily considered 'voluntary' when their employment duties compel the action. The ruling is also significant for treating a manufacturer's incorrect information provided through technical support as a potential basis for an 'inadequate warning' claim under strict product liability, broadening the scope of what may constitute a product defect.
