Lewis Barbe Expert Witness: Wagner Mining Equipment Company Court Case

Informations

• Publié par: seorumer
• Publié le: 16 mai 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 2
• Langue: English

Extrait

667F.2d402


PatriciaA.HOLLINGER,AdministratrixoftheEstateof
GermaineS.Hollinger,Deceased,Appellant,
vs.
WAGNERMININGEQUIPMENTCOMPANY,ADivisionofPaccar,
Inc.
No.81-1359.


UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,
ThirdCircuit.
ArguedSept.21,1981.
DecidedDec.22,1981.
RehearingDeniedJan.15,1982.


PaulJ.Senesky(argued),Galfand,Berger,Senesky,Lurie&March,Philadelphia,Pa.,forappellant.
DavidL.Grove(argued),Montgomery,McCracken,
Walker&Rhoads,Philadelphia,Pa.,forappellee;DavidN.
Hofstein,Philadelphia,Pa.,ofcounsel.

BeforeALDISERT,HIGGINBOTHAMandSLOVITER,CircuitJudges.
OPINIONOFTHECOURT
SLOVITER,CircuitJudge.


I. ISSUE

1 Thisisanappealfromthegrantofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendant,WagnerMining
EquipmentCo.(Wagner).Inthisdiversityactionplaintiffseeksdamagesforthedeathofher
decedent,GermaineS.Hollinger(Hollinger),whowaskilledonMay27,1977atanundergroundmine
operatedbyBethlehemMinesCorp.(Bethlehem)inMorgantown,Pennsylvania,afterbeingstruckbya
scooptram'operatedbyanotherBethlehememployee,IrvinHartz.Thescooptramwasmanufacturedby
Wagnerin1969andwasputintooperationinNovemberofthatyearbyBethlehem.


2 Plaintiffsclaim,whichevolvedinitspresentformduringdiscovery,isthatthescooptramwas
Soldinanunsafeconditionasdefinedbysection4o2AoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts2becauseit
wasnotequippedwithanautomaticwarningdeviceatthetimeofitssale.Wagnermovedforsummary
judgment,essentiallycontendingthattheundisputedfactsprovethattheallegeddefectdidnotcause
Hollinger'sdeath.ThedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoWagner,findingthatnogenuineissue
existsastothematerialfactthat"thedecedentsawandheardtheapproachingscooptram,"and
thereforethat"thepresenceorabsenceofanyaudibleorvisualdevice,whosesolefunctionwouldhave
beentoalertthedecedentthatthescooptramwascoming,couldnothavecausedtheaccident...."
Hollingerv.WagnerMiningEquipmentCo.,505F.Supp.894,899(E.D.Pa.1981).Thecourtheldinthe
alternativethatevenifcausationcouldbeestablished,therecouldbenoliabilityimposedonthe
manufacturerundersection4o2A(1)(b)oftheRestatement(Second)ofTortsbecauseBethlehemhad
removedtheoperativemanualhornwithwhichthescooptramwasoriginallysold,therebyeffectinga
"substantialchange"inthescooptram'scondition.Id.at900-02.Wefindthatsummaryjudgmentoneither
ofthesegroundswasinappropriateontherecordbeforethedistrictcourtandremand.

II.FACTS

3 Thefollowingfactsarenotindispute.Atthetimeoftheaccident,Hollingerandhishelper,Rump,
wereworkinginthe"607EastProductionDrift"oftheBethlehemminealongwithHartz,whowas
operatingthescooptram.Thediagramintherecordofthisportionofthedriftshowsamaintunnelat
least10feetwide,offthenorthsideofwhichwerethreeentries,numbered,fromwesttoeast,03,02and
01.Morethan5ofeeteastofentry01wasanothersmallentryinwhichwaslocatedanexplosivestorage
box.To"uRhefarthesteastwasthewatervalvefromwhichthescrubbertankofthescooptramwas
filled.Acrossthetunnelfromentry01(i.e.tothesouthofthatentry)wasawaterdrainagemanway.It
wasacommonpracticetoassignthreepersonstoworkinoneproductiondrift.Hollingerandhishelper
weredrillingandblastingoversizedchunksoforewhichhadbeenplacedinthe03entry.Thethird
employee,Hartz,thescooptramoperator,wasdrawingmuckfromthe01and02entriesanddumpingit


atapointwestofthe03entry.Hollingerlefthishelperintheo3entryandwalkedeastinthedirectionof
the01entryandthewaterdrainagemanwaylocateddirectlyacrossthetunnelfromthe01entry.At
roughlythesametime,Hartznoticedthatthescrubbertankofthescooptramwasempty.Inorderto
refillthetank,heproceededtowardsthewatervalve,locatedapproximately102feeteastofthe01entry.
Ashewasproceedingeastinthetunnel,HartzsawHollingerstandingattheentrancetothewater
drainagemanwayontherightsideofthetunnelacrossfromthe01entry.HartztestifiedthatHollinger
turnedtofacethescooptram,thathesawthelightonHollinger'shelmet,andthatsuchaturnwasin
accordancewithstandardminepractice.

Hollingerthensteppedintothewaterdrainagemanway.Atthetimeofthissighting,thescooptramwas
atapointbetweenthe02ando3entries,approximately100to150feetawayfromtheentrancetothe
waterdrainagemanway.Thescooptramwasmovingatapproximatelyfivemilesperhour.Hartzwas
unabletoseeHollingerortheentrancetothedrainagemanwayagainasheproceededfurtherdownthe
tunnel,duetothefactthatthedriver'sseatwaslocatedontheleftsideandthelargescoopobscuredhis
visionoftherightsideofthevehicle.Ashepassedthe01entry,Hartzfeltthatthescoopwasdragging
andheconsequentlyliftedthebucketafewinchesandproceededtothewatervalve.Uponreachingthe
watervalve,HartzlookedbackandsawHollinger'sbodylyinginthedrift.

III.SUMMARYJUDGMENT

5 Rule56oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesthatatrialcourtmayentersummary
judgment"ifthepleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwith
theaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingparty
isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw."Wehavecharacterizedsummaryjudgmentas"'adrastic
remedy'",andhavemadeclear"thatcourtsaretoresolveanydoubtsastotheexistenceofgenuine
issuesoffactagainstthemovingparties."Nessv.Marshall,660F.2d517at519(3dCir.1981)(quoting
Tomalewskiv.StateFarmLifeInsuranceCo.,494F.2d882,884(3dCir.1974)).Moreover,"(i)nferencesto
bedrawnfromtheunderlyingfactscontainedintheevidentialsourcessubmittedtothetrialcourtmust
beviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothepartyopposingthemotion."Goodmanv.MeadJohnson&
Co.,534F.2d566,573(3dCir.1976),cert.denied,429U.S.1038,97S.Ct.732,5oL.Ed.2d748(1977)."On
reviewtheappellatecourtisrequiredtoapplythesametestthedistrictcourtshouldhaveutilized
initially."Id.

ProximateCause

Thefirstbasisforthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgmentwasthattheabsenceofanautomatic
warningdevicecouldnothavecausedtheaccident"becausethedecedentsawandheardthe
approachingscooptram."505F.Supp.at899.Theprimarybasisforthisfindingwasthecourt'sapparent
inferencethatsincetherewasevidencethatHollingerwasawareofthescooptram'sapproachshortly

beforetheaccident,heremainedawareofitupuntilthemomentofimpact.Athisdeposition,Hartz
testifiedthatwhenthescooptramwaspassingtheo3entry,hesawHollingeracrossfromthe01entry
andhesawhimturnandacknowledgethescooptram'sapproach.However,therewasalsotestimony,
apparentlyuncontradicted,thatthedistancebetweenthescooptramandHollingeratthispointwas100
to150feet.WeikDep.at29.Hartztestifiedthathewastravelingatnomorethanfivemilesperhourat
thetime,HartzDep.at34-35;thus,atleast14to20secondsmusthaveelapsedbetweenthetimeof
sightingandthetimeofimpact.Therefore,evenifHartz'testimonyestablishesthatHollingerwasaware
ofthescooptramwhenitwas100to150feetaway,itfailstoestablishconclusivelythatHollingerwas
awareofthescooptramimmediatelybeforetheimpact.

7 Otherevidencemaysuggestadifferentinference.Theexactpointofimpactisunknown,butitis
undisputedthatHollinger'sbodyandeffectswerefoundinthetunneleastofthe01entry,inthevicinity
oftheexplosivesstoragebox.AlthoughHollingerdidnotsayanythingtohisco-workerbeforeleavingthe
o3entry,apossibleinferencefromtheevidenceisthatHollingerwasgoingformoreblastingpowder
from"uRheexplosivestoragebox,locatedbetweentheorentryandthewatervalve.Bethlehem
AccidentReport;WeikDep.at16,23-24.3Itisalsoapparentlyundisputedthatthescooptram'srouteon
thisoccasion,proceedingpasttheorentryandontothewatervalve,wasadeviationfromitsprevious
patternofturningintothe02ororentrytocontinueitsmuckingoperations.
MESAReport,App.At8ra;WeikDep.at17,35-36.Inviewofthisevidence,ajurymightreasonably
concludethatevenifHollingerhadseenthescooptramwhenitwaspassingtheo3entry,heassumed
thatitwasgoingtoturnintothe02ororentryasithadpreviouslydone,andthereforehecontinuedto
walkeasttowardstheexplosivesstorageboxywithhisbacktothescooptram.EvenifHollingerheardthe
scooptram'scontinuedapproach,hemayhavebeenunawareofitsexactlocationandunconcernedifhe
believedthatitwasgoingtoturnoffbeforereachinghim.

Thedistrictcourtalsostressedtheevidencethatthescooptram"lituplikeaChristmastree"andhada
noiselevelcomparabletoadieseltruck,6andthatHollinger"hadnoknownhearingorseeingproblems."
505F.Supp.at899.Thisapparentlyledthedistrictcourttoconcludethatareasonablejurymust
necessarilyinferthatthenoiseandlightgeneratedbythescooptraminnormaloperationwouldbyitself
havebeensufficienttohavealertedHollingertoitsapproach.

g However,therewastestimonybyplaintiffsexpert,LewisBarbe,thatthenormaloperatingnoise
ofthescooptram,whileloud,was"subconsciouslynullifiedbypeopleinmines,"who"don'tpayany
attentionbecausetheyassumetheoperatorcanseethem."ThiswasthebasisforBarbe'sconclusionthat
"(s)ometypeofabiodirectionalalarm,"setatadifferentdecibelratingorfrequencysoastoidentifyitas
adangersignal,wasnecessarytoalertminerstothescooptram'sapproachandtothefactthatthedriver
couldnotseewherehewasgoing.BarbeDep.at10-11.Thesoundandlightgeneratedbythescooptram
itselfwereapparentlynotconsideredadequatewarningbytheFederalMiningEnforcementandSafety
Administration(MESA)sinceitsaccidentreportrecommendedthatscooptramsbeequippedwithaudible
warningdevices.App.at83a.


Werecognizethatunderthecircumstancesofthiscase,plaintiffwillnotbeabletoproduceanyevidence
ofHollinger'sa