PRODUCTS LIABILITY: UNFORESEEABLE MISUSE
Perez v. VAS S.p.A., (Second District, August 24, 2010, as Modified September 17, 2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 658, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,229, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,719
A man whose right hand was crushed while operating a paper rewinding machine for his employer filed suit against the manufacturer of the machine, asserting various products liability theories. The plaintiff alleged that the rewinder was defectively designed because it had an unguarded nip point created by two cylinders which rotated toward each other in the machine, in violation of title 8, section 4002(a) of the California Code of Regulations. The plaintiff further alleged that there was a defect in the design of the machine because during the slow speed operation there was no physical barrier or optical curtain barrier.
In a nonjury trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that the rewinding machine was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer, and concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the absence of unforeseeable misuse. Following a judgment in favor of the defendant the plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court had erred in assigning the burden of proof to him to prove the absence of unforeseeable misuse.
The court of appeal agreed that the trial court had erred in applicable burden-shifting analysis, holding that the burden of proof had shifted to the manufacturer. However, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the error was not prejudicial, and that the plaintiff’s use of the machine in an unforeseeable manner constituted a superseding cause of his injury:
Continue reading " PRODUCTS LIABILITY: UNFORESEEABLE MISUSE " »
