Case Brief: Holland ex rel. Knox v. Morbark, Inc.

 

Holland ex rel. Knox v. Morbark, Inc., 407 S.C. 227, 754 S.E.2d 714 (Ct. App. 2014), involves a wood chipper.  Anytime I hear the words "wood chipper" I think of Marge Gunderson in the movie, Fargo: "And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper . . . ."  (Yes, that is a sock-covered foot under that piece of wood).

I guess you could say I have a dark sense of humor, and the truth is, I love that movie.  I have never looked at wood chippers the same since seeing it.  Anyway, read on...

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiff's job was to clean and change the cutting knives inside a wood chipper.  407 S.C. at 230, 754 S.E.2d at 716.  When he attempted to raise the hood on the machine, the interior fan blades were still rotating and came in contact with the hood.  The contact caused the hood to kick back and strike Plaintiff in the head, injuring him.  Id. 

 

PROCEDURE: Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the wood chipper manufacturer ("Manufacturer"), his employer, a prior owner of the wood chipper (before sale to his employer), and the installer of the wood chipper.  407 S.C. at 231, 754 S.E.2d at 717.  Plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint to dismiss all defendants except Manufacturer and withdraw his negligence claim.  He maintained his actions against Manufacturer for strict liability and breach of warranty.  Manufacturer consented to Plaintiff's first amendment.  Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his Complaint.  Manufacturer opposed the second motion and filed a motion for summary judgment.  Id. 

 

The circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint because it believed allowing the amendment would prejudice Manufacturer.  Id. at 232, 754 S.E.2d at 717.  The circuit court granted Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on grounds that (1) the wood chipper was not in the same condition at the time of the accident as when it left Manufacturer's hands; (2) Manufacturer's failure to incorporate additional safety features did not render the machine unreasonably dangerous when no other industry manufacturer had incorporated the optional safety device advanced by Plaintiff's expert; and (3) Plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable alternative design as required under South Carolina law.  Id. at 232-33, 754 S.E.2d at 717-18.  The circuit court also dismissed Plaintiff's failure to warn claim.  Id. at 233, 754 S.E.2d at 718.  Plaintiff moved for reconsideration.  After his motion was denied, he appealed.  Id.

 

ISSUES: (1) Did the circuit court err in denying Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint; and (2) Did the circuit court err in granting Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment?  407 S.C. at 233, 753 S.E.2d at 718.

 

DISPOSITION: Affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

 

RULES AND OPINION:  First, the Court addressed Plaintiff's arguments concerning amendment of his Complaint.  407 S.C. at 233-37, 754 S.E.2d at 718-20.  He argued the circuit court denied his second amendment based on an erroneous conclusion that it had already granted his first motion to amend.  Id. at 233-34, 754 S.E.2d at 718.  In short, Plaintiff argued the court failed to grant his first motion to amend.  The Court of Appeals disagreed.  Although the circuit court issued no separate written order granting the amendment and dismissal of the other defendants, the evidence in the record established the circuit court permitted -- and the parties' consented to -- Plaintiff's amendment.  Indeed, Plaintiff relied on his first amended Complaint in opposing Manufacturer's motion for summary judgment.  His own behavior illustrated his belief that his first amended Complaint was properly before the circuit court.  Id. at 234, 754 S.E.2d at 718.

 

The Court then turned to Plaintiff's second motion to amend his Complaint.  Id. at 235, 754 S.E.2d at 718-19.  It reviewed the standard set forth in Rule 15 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules that (a) a motion to amend is addressed to the circuit court's discretion, and (b) the party opposing the motion has the burden of establishing prejudice.  Id. at 235, 753 S.E.2d at 719.  "Prejudice occurs when the amendment states a new claim or defense that would require the opposing party to introduce additional or different evidence to prevail in the amended action."  Id. (citing Ball v. Canadian Am. Exp. Co., Inc., 314 S.C. 272, 275, 442 S.E.2d 620, 622 (Ct. App. 1994)).  The Court affirmed denial of the second motion to amend because it found Plaintiff was in possession of the additional information about a defect theory after his experts were deposed, but he did not expound on the theory until much later at the motions hearing.  Id.  Although Plaintiff was not seeking to add a new claim, the addition of his defect theory -- raised after extensive discovery -- would have required additional depositions, hiring of rebuttal experts, and delay on the eve of trial.  Id. at 236, 754 S.E.2d at 719.  Furthermore, the second amendment would not occur until over two years after Plaintiff filed his first Complaint.  Therefore, the Court agreement Manufacturer would have been prejudiced by the granting of the second motion to amend.  Id.  The Court also pointed out in dicta that the alleged defect theory was based on an OSHA violation, and OSHA only regulates employers, not manufacturers.  Id. at 236-37, 754 S.E.2d at 719-20. 

 

The Court then turned to the circuit court's grant of summary judgment.  Id. at 237, 754 S.E.2d at 720.  Plaintiff claimed the circuit court erred in relying on Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010), and its requirement of proving a reasonable alternative design in design defect cases.  The Court disagreed and said that to prove a reasonable alternative design, Plaintiff was had to set forth some evidence of an alternative design, which included "consideration of costs, safety, and functionality associated with the alternative design."  Id. at 237-38, 754 S.E.2d at 720.  Plaintiff's expert admitted he was unaware of anyone in the industry that had performed a feasibility analysis for an alternative design.  Id. at 238, 754 S.E.2d at 720.  He also admitted he had not prepared an actual design for an interlock system concerning opening the hood and operating blades, only a concept.  "Because a conceptual design is insufficient to establish a reasonable alternative design, we find [Plaintiff's] claim for design defect fails as a matter of law."  Id. (citing Holst v. KCI Konecranes Int'l Corp., 390 S.C. 29, 37, 699 S.E.2d 715, 719-20 (Ct. App. 2010)).  The Court further stated that because proof of reasonable alternative design is necessary in a design defect case, it would not address Plaintiff's remaining claims of error pertaining to his design defect cause of action.  Id. at 238, 754 S.E.2d at 720-721 (citing Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 598, 598 (1999) for the principle that an appellate court may not review remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive).   

 

The Court then turned to Plaintiff's argument that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on his failure to warn claim.  Id. at 239, 754 S.E.2d at 721.  First, because products liability claims share common elements, Plaintiff's failure to establish a reasonable alternative design in his design defect claim prevented him from succeeding on his failure to warn claim as a matter of law.  Id. (citing to Branham, 390 S.C. at 210, 701 S.E.2d at 8 for principle that failure to establish any one of the three elements in a companion products liability claim is fatal to all related products liability claims). 

 

Notwithstanding this issue, the Court held the circuit court properly granted summary judgment.  The Court recounted the law that "'[a] product bearing a warning that the product is safe for use if the user follows the warning is neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous; therefore, the seller is not liable for any injuries caused by the use of the product if the user ignores the warning.'"  Id. (quoting Anderson v. Green Bull, Inc., 322 S.C. 268, 270, 471 S.E.2d 708, 710 (Ct. App. 1996)).  A seller is also not required to warn of dangers that are generally known and recognized, and therefore a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous if the danger associated with the product is one the product's users generally recognize.  Id. 

 

With this context, the Court discussed how the wood chipper had decals, warnings, and an owner's manual when it left the hands of Manufacturer in 1996.  Id. at 239-40, 754 S.E.2d at 721.  These warnings were not present when Plaintiff was injured.  However, the owner prior to Plaintiff's employer had affixed warnings on the machine that warned of the potential dangers at issue in the case.  The Court found these warnings were sufficient to render the machine safe for use if the user followed the warnings.  Id. at 240, 754 S.E.2d at 721.   

 

Regardless, the Court believed it would be improper to hold Manufacturer liable for failure to warn since (a) Manufacturer affixed warnings at the time of manufacture, (b) the warnings at issue were affixed by a prior owner of the machine (not Manufacturer), (c) Manufacturer sold the machine ten years prior to the accident, and (d) three intervening owners used the machine before Plaintiff's injury.  Id.  Plaintiff also indicated in his testimony that he appreciated the danger being hit in the head by the hood if he opened it prematurely.  Manufacturer had no duty to warn Plaintiff of a danger he already recognized.  Id. at 240, 754 S.E.2d at 721-22.   

This is an interesting case that mixes in a little of everything.  There is heavy reliance on Branham and Anderson, which I consider to be two of the most important, "meaty" cases in South Carolina products liability law.  In addition, even though the Court does not quote case law concerning the "essentially same condition" element of a products liability action, it is clear there is some reliance on this law in affirming summary judgment.

This post is subject to the DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE of this website.