Lundgren v. Ferno-Washington Co.

KARWACKI, Judge. Paul E. Lundgren appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict against him in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Cave, J.) in favor of the appellee, Ferno-Washington Co., Inc. . Appellant sought damages for an injury he received when a cart which he was using to transport a copy machine collapsed. The case was submitted to the jury on the issues of negligent design and strict liability and it resolved both in favor of appellee.

Appellant raises four issues on appeal, all concerning the court’s instructions to the jury. I. Was it proper for the trial judge to make the initial determination as to whether the cart was an “inherently dangerous” object rather than submitting this question to the jury? ⁵²⁵ II. Was the trial judge’s instruction on the “latent/patent” rule proper?

III

Was the appellant entitled to a failure to warn instruction?

IV

Were the trial judge’s instructions so confusing and ambiguous as to amount to reversible error? FACTS On or about September 18, 1983, appellant, a sales representative of Commonwealth Copy Productions, Inc. of Rock-ville, transported a 300 lb. Panasonic photocopy machine to a prospective customer at the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda. Before leaving for this sales demonstration, he placed the copy machine on a Model 283, Salesmaker cart, which was designed, manufactured and sold by appellee, and placed a strap over the machine to secure it to the cart.

The cart’s legs were designed so that they would fold under, and the cart could be stored, with machine on top, in the back of a station wagon. The appellant then engaged a manual safety lock mechanism on the cart, which was designed to prevent the legs of the cart from collapsing, and wheeled the cart to his station wagon. He disengaged the safety lock mechanism, pulled the handle release bar to collapse the rear wheels, and rolled the cart and copier into the back of his station wagon. Appellant drove to the church and parked next to a curb, approximately 15 feet from the church door.

He removed the cart carrying the copy machine from the vehicle, and the front legs snapped down. He stated that he then engaged the locking mechanism to prevent the legs from collapsing, lifted the cart over the curb, and pulled the cart to the church threshold. He then opened the church door and held it open with his back while he lifted the cart over the door sill. During this maneuver, the machine shifted on the cart, and as he reached for the copier to prevent it from sliding further, the cart collapsed, knocking him to the floor and causing him serious and permanent injuries. ⁵²⁶ Appellant 1 sought recovery on theories of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.

At trial, appellant’s expert witness, Dr. William Walston, testified that the cart’s locking mechanism was defectively designed. He cited two factors in support of his opinion. The first was that the locking mechanism required the operator to engage the lock manually instead of locking automatically. The second factor was that the only thing holding the mechanism in position was friction.

He said that because of this design it was possible that the lock bar could inadvertently slide back and forth, thereby disengaging the lock. Dr. Watson also testified that an automatic locking device could have been used instead of the manual one, that this device was available when the cart was manufactured in 1979, that the automatic device would not have adversely affected the utility of the cart, and that it would have been cost effective to utilize the automatic device. Dr. Donald Vannoy testified, as an expert called by the appellee, that the cart, including the locking mechanism, was not defective and that it complied with industry standards at the time. He also testified that although the automatic locking device could have been used in place of the manual one, that each had its own advantages.

The case was submitted to the jury on the issues of strict liability in tort and negligence with respect to the design of the cart and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee. I. The Court of Appeals in Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337 , 363 A.2d 955 (1976), adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) as the law of strict liability in tort: ⁵²⁷ 402A. Special Liability of Belles’ of Product for Plhysical Harm to Uses’ or Comsumer (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.

Inasmuch as Section 402A involves the standard of unreasonable danger, a court in a design defect case such as the one at bar must weigh “the utility of risk inherent in the design against the magnitude of the risk,” 2 Phipps at 345, 363 A.2d 955 . This, essentially, is the factual determination which a jury is called upon to make in a defective ⁵²⁸ design case. The court in Phipps , however, explained that there are certain cases in which this factual determination need not be made because “there are those conditions which whether caused by design or manufacture, can never be said to involve a reasonable risk.” 3 Id, Thus, an initial determination as to whether the product involves an “inherently unreasonable risk” is required. Only in those cases where the risk is not inherently unreasonable is the jury called upon to apply the balancing test to determine whether a product is reasonably safe.

As a result, “in Maryland design cases not included in the limited category of inherently unreasonable risks, strict liability, in the usual sense, does not apply.” Singleton v. International Harvester Co., 685 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir.1981). Consequently, this initial determination as to whether the risk involved is inherently unreasonable is a critical one. If the court finds that the product creates a risk that is indeed inherently unreasonable, the plaintiff, in order to recover, need only show that (a) the seller is in the business of selling such a product; and (b) that it was expected to and did reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold. If the court finds otherwise, the burden on the plaintiff is much greater; he or she must also persuade the jury that the product is unreasonably dangerous.

In the case at bar, the court ruled that the cart did not create an inherently unreasonable risk of harm. Appellant ⁵²⁹ argues that this determination is one that should be made by the jury, not the court. We disagree. Determining whether a manufacturer should be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the design of a particular product is a decision that involves the consideration of important policy issues.

Such decisions are best left to the courts, which can carefully consider and apply them. In addition, judicial determination of whether a given product creates an inherently unreasonable risk prevents strict liability from being imposed inconsistently, something that would certainly result if the issue was sent to the jury each time it arose. We agree with