Court Rules for Manufacturers in Fight Over Suits Alleging Dangerous Products
In a significant legal victory for big business that is a setback for workers and consumers, a state appeal court has ruled that corporations may escape financial damages for product-related injuries by claiming that people assume the risk of using potentially harmful goods.
Ruling in the case of a San Diego man injured on the job by a drill, the 4th District Court of Appeal said Monday that the law encourages people to bear responsibility for their own actions, even when using an inherently dangerous product.
That notion is at the core of a complex debate in the courts over personal choice and corporate responsibility.
In its decision, the 4th District court ruled that the defense’s argument is valid, but it did not decide the merits of this particular case, which it allowed to go to trial.
Calling the 4th District court’s ruling a “bad decision,” the lawyer who brought the suit said that, if the ruling stands, it will decrease the incentive for business to emphasize safety.
Los Angeles attorney Bruce Broillet added that the ruling could leave consumers and workers without important legal recourse for job-related injuries and medical bills. His client, Lawrence Vondrasek, now 33, was hurt in 1985 while drilling through an iron beam at a North County construction site.
“Anytime you reduce the incentive of big corporations to take every measure to safeguard the public, that’s good for big business and bad for the public,” said Broillet, adding that an appeal to the California Supreme Court is under consideration.
The lawyer for the company that made the drill, however, said manufacturers are already wary--and weary--of multimillion-dollar damage awards. A corporation shouldn’t be forced to pay up if the user of a product like a drill doesn’t follow directions, said Los Angeles attorney John W. (Jay) McConnell III.
“Although manufacturers do the best they can to make them as safe as they can, certain products are simply just dangerous by their very nature,” said McConnell, the lawyer for Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., which makes and distributes power tools.
Vondrasek was hurt when he let go of a side handle on the drill to grab a post. While he was holding the tool with one hand and balancing the side handle in the crook of his arm, the drill bit caught on the beam, twisting him to the ground and leaving him with injuries to his right wrist, Broillet said. The accident led to five surgeries and left Vondrasek unable to work for 2 1/2 years, Broillet said.
Vondrasek, a union tradesman, was familiar with the drill and the job, the lawyers in the case said. The instruction manual for the drill warns users: “Always use side handle to maintain control.”
Claiming the drill is a dangerous product that had injured him though he had “used” the side handle by balancing it in the crook of his arm, Vondrasek sued Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. for damages in San Diego Superior Court. The company said his injuries were his own fault because he chose to use the drill without a two-hand hold.
Judge Richard D. Huffman said, however, that Vondrasek should be allowed to tell a jury about whatever risk he believed he was taking on by using the tool without both hands on the handles.
No trial date has been set.
Until 1975, the person being sued could win the dismissal of a suit if the person suing voluntarily assumed the risk of a known danger. Since a 1975 California Supreme Court ruling, the state courts have disagreed over whether the defense remains valid.
The state Supreme Court is weighing the issue in a dozen cases involving injured water skiers, off-road racers, horseback riders and softball players, among others with sports-related injuries.
The 4th District Court, saying that injuries caused by dangerous products are a separate category, said Monday that the defense is still valid.
