Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH
955 S.W 2d 252, 1997 Tenn. LEXIS 427, 1997 WL 534424 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action, a defendant may introduce evidence of an immune employer's conduct, such as altering a product, to show it was the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury. However, the jury may not apportion legal fault to the immune employer; this evidence is admissible only to aid the defendant in arguing that the product was not defective or unreasonably dangerous when it left its control.
Facts:
- William Snyder was an employee of Sara Lee Knit Products, working as a technician.
- Sara Lee used cotton baler machines, manufactured and sold by defendants LTG Lufttechnische GmbH and LTG Technologies, Inc., to compress cotton.
- On February 1, 1992, Snyder was working on a cotton baler that had stopped mid-cycle.
- A metal safety panel, which was normally bolted over an opening in the machine, had been removed by an unknown person.
- Without disconnecting the power, Snyder inserted his arm through this opening to clear loose cotton from a protective switch.
- The machine engaged, causing severe injury to Snyder's arm.
Procedural Posture:
- William Snyder filed a products liability suit against LTG Lufttechnische GmbH and LTG Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, a federal trial court.
- The defendants named HSM Pressen GmbH as a party, claiming it was the actual manufacturer of the baler.
- The Travelers Insurance Company, the workers' compensation carrier for Snyder's employer, intervened in the case to assert a subrogation claim.
- The U.S. District Court, finding no controlling precedent in Tennessee law, certified two questions of law to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for resolution.
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 Tennessee's comparative fault system permit a products liability defendant to introduce evidence that the plaintiff's immune employer's alteration, change, or improper maintenance of a product was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries, even though legal fault cannot be apportioned to the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Justice
Yes, a products liability defendant may introduce relevant evidence that the plaintiff’s employer’s actions were a cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court reaffirms its holding in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. that fault cannot be apportioned to a non-party immune from tort liability, such as an employer protected by workers' compensation laws. However, the court clarifies that this does not preclude a defendant from presenting evidence of the employer's conduct. The court distinguishes between 'cause in fact' (the 'but for' cause) and 'proximate cause' (legal responsibility). Allowing a defendant to introduce evidence that the employer's subsequent alteration or improper maintenance of the product was the cause in fact of the injury is essential for the defendant to argue that the product was not defective or unreasonably dangerous when it left its control. Prohibiting such evidence would effectively prevent the defendant from presenting a credible defense and would mean the jury could not hear the true facts surrounding the injury. The jury must be instructed that it can consider the employer's actions only to determine if the plaintiff has met their burden against the defendant, but it may not assess fault against the employer.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the intersection of Tennessee's comparative fault doctrine and workers' compensation immunity. By distinguishing between 'cause in fact' and 'proximate/legal cause,' the court creates a critical pathway for products liability defendants. It allows them to present a complete defense by introducing evidence of an employer's intervening acts without overturning the established principle from Ridings that an immune employer cannot be assigned a percentage of fault. This holding strikes a balance, protecting a defendant's ability to argue they are not liable while upholding the policy behind employer immunity. Future cases will rely on this framework to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning the conduct of immune non-parties.
Unlock the full brief for Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH