Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—E.D. Va.: Hoist manufacturer faces unresolved design and warning claims in seaman injury dispute, (Oct 30, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

Genuine issues remained concerning a design defect, failure to warn, the employer’s alleged negligence, and contribution, allowing those claims to survive.

In an admiralty action arising from a deckhand’s injuries when a lever hoist chain snapped during a dredge-pipe repair, a federal district court in Virginia partly granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on the employer’s third-party claims. The court granted the manufacturer summary judgment on the manufacturing-defect theory of active-passive tort indemnity and the abandoned breach-of-warranty indemnity claim, while allowing the employer’s claims for design-defect, failure-to-warn, contribution, and recovery of maintenance and cure payments (In the Matter of the Complaint of Cottrell Contracting Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00637-EWH-LRL (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2026)).

Background. In June 2025, a deckhand employed by Cottrell Contracting Corporation was repairing a dredge pipe aboard a vessel operated by Cottrell. The repair involved applying a cold patch using silicone and burlap, covering the area with a rubber patch, placing a weight over it, wrapping a lever hoist chain around the weight and patch, and repeatedly operating the hoist to tighten the chain. During the operation, the chain snapped and struck the deckhand in the face, prompting him to sue Cottrell in state court. The employer brought an admiralty action seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability and filed a third-party complaint against lever hoist manufacturer JPW Industries, Inc., seeking active-passive tort indemnity based on manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn; separate indemnity for breach of warranty; and contribution in the alternative. The man later voluntarily dismissed his claims against JPW with prejudice. JPW moved for summary judgment on Cottrell’s third-party claims.

Design defect. Cottrell alleged that the lever hoist was unreasonably prone to being overloaded and breaking, and that a slip clutch could have prevented tightening beyond the hoist’s tolerances. It also pointed to other JPW lever hoists that incorporated slip clutches. JPW argued that the deckhand had used the device outside its intended purpose because the manual did not contemplate using the hoist to bind a cold patch. The court rejected an intended-purpose test that excluded reasonably foreseeable uses. Under general maritime products liability law, a design defect inquiry considers whether the product’s risks exceed what a reasonable buyer would expect and whether the likelihood and gravity of harm outweigh the product’s utility. The product must have been used, or misused, in a reasonably foreseeable manner when the injury occurred. Pridemore v. Hryniewich, 2022 WL 4542250 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2022). As Barnes v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 555 F.2d 1184, 1187 (4th Cir. 1977), explained, intended use is a convenient adaptation of the broader foreseeability test. Cottrell offered evidence that the manual endorsed at least some binding applications and that the hoist’s long chain was suited to such work. That evidence could support a finding that using the hoist to secure a cold patch was reasonably foreseeable, even if it was not expressly intended. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the design-defect theory.

Warning defect. Cottrell alleged that JPW failed to warn that hand-tightening the hoist could break its chain or that using the chain to bind an object such as a dredge pipe could cause failure. JPW maintained that the manual adequately warned against the application and that neither the deckhand nor his supervisors had reviewed it. Under Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(c), a warning claim asks whether reasonable instructions could have reduced foreseeable harm and whether their omission rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. Causation also requires evidence that the injured person or supervisory personnel read the relevant warning, label, or manual. Harrison v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 577 F.2d 968, 984 (5th Cir. 1978). The manual instructed that pulls or lifts be made with straight chain free of obstacles, and referred to wire rope for binding applications. But it also appeared to endorse some binding uses and did not expressly prohibit using a chain for that purpose. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could view the warnings as inadequate. Further, a supervisor’s testimony that personnel had learned about the hoists through years of use and that he had a working knowledge of the manual left a genuine dispute over whether he had reviewed it. Summary judgment was denied on failure to warn.

Negligence. JPW argued that Cottrell’s active negligence barred active-passive indemnity, which allows a passively or secondarily at-fault party to shift liability to a party bearing active or primary fault. Vaughn v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 937 F.2d 953, 957 (4th Cir. 1991). Because foreseeable use, warning adequacy, and the manual’s meaning remained disputed, the court also found genuine factual disputes concerning Cottrell’s negligence and denied summary judgment on that ground.

Other claims. Unlike active-passive indemnity, contribution may remain available where a party found liable pays more than its proportionate share of fault. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. United States, 874 F.2d 169, 171-72 (3d Cir. 1989). Because JPW relied on the same arguments already rejected concerning the design, warnings, and Cottrell’s negligence, it established no independent basis for summary judgment on contribution. Cottrell abandoned its separate breach-of-warranty indemnity claim at the final pretrial conference and conceded that no manufacturing defect existed, resulting in the grant of summary judgment on those claims.

Maintenance and cure. JPW argued that Cottrell alone was responsible for maintenance and cure, which covers a disabled seaman’s living and medical expenses. The court noted that federal circuits were divided on whether employers could recover these payments from third parties and that the Fourth Circuit had not addressed the issue. Following the prevailing view, it recognized a maritime-law right to recover maintenance and cure payments from a third-party tortfeasor whose negligence caused the seaman’s disability. Dishong v. Peabody Corp., 219 F.R.D. 382, 385 n.4 (E.D. Va. 2003). The court reasoned that a party whose negligence caused or contributed to the need for such payments should bear the resulting costs. Savoie v. Lafourche Boat Rentals, Inc., 627 F.2d 722, 723-24 (5th Cir. 1980). Summary judgment was denied on this claim.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-00637-EWH-LRL.

Judge: Hanes, E.W.

Attorneys: Laura B. De La Cruz (Schechter Shaffer & Harris, LLP) for Maliek King. Christopher Alan Abel (Willcox & Savage PC) for Hydraulic Service Co., Inc.

Companies: Hydraulic Service Co., Inc.

MainStory: TopStory IndustrialCommercialEquipNews DefensesLiabilityNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews VirginiaNews