Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT—N.D. Cal.: Strict liability defect claims permitted to move forward in crane accident, (Jan 14, 2014)

By Michael J. Bartholomew J.D., LLM

A complaint alleging a crane manufacturer’s strict liability for defects in the design and manufacture of a crane was sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturer, a California federal court decided. (Arnett v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC, January 13 2014, Orrick W.)

Background. In the course of performing maintenance work, Mark Arnett was killed on a crane at the Port of Oakland. His wife, Jackie Arnett, sued Seaside Transportation Services, LLC, the company operating the berth and crane, Whitney Equipment LLC, the company which sold, leased or rented the crane, and Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co, Ltd. (ZPMC), the company that designed and manufactured the crane. Arnett asserted causes of action against the three companies, including (a) negligence in the manufacture, design, repair, maintenance, inspection and training on the crane; (b) strict products liability based on the design, production, supply, distribution, sale and lease of the crane; and (c) products liability – negligence based on the defects in the manufacture, design and operation of the crane. ZPMC moved to dismiss the claims asserted against it, arguing that the facts alleged in the complaint failed to show how the alleged defects in the crane caused Mr. Arnett’s death.

Arnett alleged there were specific defects with the crane in the design and manufacture of the rail and trolley system, requiring dangerous repair work to be performed. Further, she stated that ZPMC failed to fix the design defects by removing, redesigning, or reducing the hazards. She also asserted that ZPMC was negligently or strictly liable for the defects and was a direct or proximate cause of the defects.

Decision. In reviewing ZPMC’s request to dismiss, the court first noted that in California, a products liability case must be based on substantial evidence establishing both the defect and causation, i.e., a substantial probability that only the design defect caused the injury. Reviewing the record, the court first found there was nothing implausible in Arnett’s facts that undermined her assertion that the defects identified caused the death of her husband. Therefore, the court found it understandable that she could not present additional facts regarding causation at this time, and making all reasonable inferences in her favor, the court ruled that her complaint allegations met the necessary standard as to whether ZPMC’s design caused the worker’s death, and denied ZPMC’s motion to dismiss in this regard.

The court then considered ZPMC’s challenge to the strict liability claim—that Arnett failed to allege facts as to how Mr. Arnett was using the crane and that such use was foreseeable; and with respect to the manufacturing defect allegation, that she did not allege how the crane differed from ZPMC’s designs or specifications or from other typical units of the same product. The court rejected ZPMC’s arguments, noting Arnett’s allegation that her husband was using the crane in a manner intended by ZPMC, to perform repair and maintenance work. As to the manufacturing defect, the court observed that Arnett had alleged that the wheels on the crane did not run properly or correctly. Thus, the court found that these allegations, along with her specific identification of the problems with the crane’s design and manufacture, were sufficient to state a claim for strict liability.

As to the negligence claims, the court held that Arnett failed to allege clearly what conduct of each of the three companies was the basis for her negligence claims. Therefore, the court struck down her complaint in this respect, but granted Arnett leave to amend her negligence claims, to make clear what conduct each defendant had allegedly engaged in that supported each of the theories underlying her negligence cause of action.

The case number is 13-cv-01672-WHO.

Attorneys: Robert Stephen Arns (The Arns Law Firm) for Jackie Arnett. Forrest Booth (Severson & Werson) for Seaside Transportation Services, LLC and Whitney Equipment LLC. Peter Edward Soskin (Berding-Weil LLP) for Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co., Ltd.

Companies: Seaside Transportation Services, LLC; Whitney Equipment LLC; Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co., Ltd.

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews CaliforniaNews