Product Liability & Appellate Departments Refute Plaintiff's Design Defect Claims
December 21, 2009
P. Scott Ritchie and Christopher Henson of the product liability practice group of the Chicago office of Clausen Miller P.C. received summary judgment from Clark County, Illinois Judge, Tracy W. Resch, on behalf of their client, Panasonic. In the complaint it was alleged that the Plaintiff was injured by a moving carriage while attempting to evaluate an adjustment he made on a high speed placement machine manufactured by Panasonic. As the Plaintiff was inspecting his adjustment, he instructed a co-worker to energize the machine which allowed the carriage to move suddenly and strike the plaintiff on his leg. The Plaintiff alleged that his resulting lacerations and knee injury were due to a defect in the design of the machine, which allowed the carriage to operate while he was inside of it inspecting his previously made adjustment. The plaintiff's wife sought recovery from Panasonic for loss of consortium.
Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Henson developed testimony from the Plaintiff's supervisors and co-workers to establish that the plaintiff had been trained to view adjustments to the machine from the outside and away from the machine's carriage. Training documents from the Plaintiff's employer confirmed that the Plaintiff failed to follow the established protocol used to check adjustments to the machine. The Plaintiff's own expert admitted during his deposition that had the Plaintiff followed the instructions provided by his employer and Panasonic, the accident would not have happened. The Plaintiff's expert also admitted that if the machine was equipped with devices to prevent the carriage from moving when energized, then the machine would not have been defectively designed. Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Henson established that the machine did indeed contain such devices and the Circuit Court granted Panasonic's Motion for Summary Judgment.
As expected, plaintiff's counsel appealed the decision of the Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Henson worked with Allison Ferrini of Clausen Miller's Appellate Department on the appellate brief and preparing for oral argument. On October 22, 2009, in a published opinion, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court granting Panasonic's Motion for Summary Judgment. In its decision, the Appellate Court relied heavily on the facts, cited law and arguments advanced by Ms. Ferrini during oral argument and set forth in the briefs on behalf of Panasonic. The Appellate Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the expert created a triable issue of fact and held that absent testimony from a qualified expert, plaintiffs could not establish "a breach of the standard of care." This is an important precedent, as the Appellate Court specifically rejected plaintiff's claims that the plaintiff's co-workers were qualified to opine that the Panasonic machine was defectively designed.
Plaintiff's counsel then filed a Petition for Rehearing, which was denied on December 3, 2009.
