Facts

On April 8, 2008, Rafael Jimenez, 46, was killed while working for the City of Inglewood as a tree trimmer while using a Morbark wood chipper. The chipper is a mobile commercial machine that has a feed tray mounted on pivot points that permits the operator to guide brush and limbs into a feed wheel. The wheel has eight rows of steel teeth, which are approximately 1½-inch long that engage the material in a cutting drum where they are reduced to chips and expelled from a discharge chute. Jimenez had been feeding branches into the chipper when his entire body somehow was pulled onto the bed and through the chipper resulting in his death. There were three witnesses to some portion of the events, but no one actually witnessed the entire incident. Jimenez's partner was up in a cherry picker trimming tree branches. A school crossing guard observed Jimenez placing cuttings and branches in the chipper before the accident. Because of the location of the vehicles, he was unable to see the actual feeding of the trimmings into the chipper and did not see the accident itself or the manner in which Jimenez became engaged with the machine. A motorist driving in the area saw Jimenez laying on the bed of the chipper with his arm and shoulder caught. However, he did not see how Jimenez had become caught in the machine. He observed the machine that pulled decedent through the chipper before he could get out of his vehicle.

Plaintiffs, the decedent's wife for 20 years, and his four children, 12,1 5, 18, and 19, sued Morbark as the manufacturer and Garvey as the seller for defect in design, negligence and misrepresentation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the product's design was a substantial factor in causing the harm in that the machine was not equipped with a knee bar, which is a control bar installed across the lower lip of the feed tray. Because of its passive nature, the operator does not have to perform an intentional act to theoretically activate the knee bar and stop the machine. A person feeding the machine who becomes caught or entangled and pulled onto the feed tray would pass over the lower control bar which, when activated, would stop the machine.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Garvey, the seller, was negligent in the marketing of the machine and in the bid presentation to the City of Inglewood who purchased the Morbark that decedent was using at the time of the accident. The City bid called for a tree chipper with a passive safety device such as the knee bar. Plaintiffs claimed that Garvey misrepresented that the Morbark was equally safe.

Finally, plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer, Morbark, was negligent in the design of the chipper because of the failure to incorporate a lower bar, which would have prevented the accident.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants claimed that there was insufficient proof that the design of the chipper was a substantial factor in causing the accident. Because of the lack of any witnesses to the exact manner in which the accident occurred, it could not be proven that a knee bar would have prevented the accident. There were several scenarios in which the decedent could have been pulled into the machine where he would not have contacted the knee bar. The defense expert testified that the most likely explanation of the accident was a failure to feed, which resulted in decedent climbing onto the feed tray to manually clear a jam or other failure to feed when he was caught and pulled into the tree chipper. Several other likely scenarios were offered.

Garvey contended that the absence of a knee bar on the machine was self-evident; that the City of Inglewood was a sophisticated buyer; and that it fully explained the operation of the machine and the differences between the Morbark and a machine equipped with a passive safety device. Garvey claimed there was no negligence, misrepresentation or concealment in connection with the sale and marketing of the tree chipper; and, that it adequately demonstrated the machine and warned against dangers.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs demanded $6,000,000. Morbark offered $500,000. Garvey offered $50,000. There were no other offers made by defendants to plaintiffs.

Result

Defense verdict for Garvey and Morbark. The court found that "plaintiffs' evidence [was] sufficient to establish that [Morbark] was negligent to not include a readily available safety device (a knee bar) that [would provide] added protection against readily foreseeable operating events and resultant harm." However, the Court believed that "the decedent entered the feed tray voluntarily probably to either clear a jam or otherwise to get the trimmings to feed into the feed wheel" and therefore found that causation was lacking. Plaintiffs are filing a Motion for a New Decision or a New Trial because they believe that the Court's decision was predicated upon speculative expert testimony that decedent intentionally crawled into the chipper to feed a few branches.