Facts

Plaintiff Christopher Corbo, 33, who was employed as a contractor providing logistics support at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant in Fremont, was speaking with Tai Lam, a co-worker, and another co-worker, Davin Castro, who were stopped outside the factory at an industrial metal staircase. Lam was operating an electric flatbed industrial truck, manufactured by Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff Christopher Corbo was standing in front of the stopped truck. One of Corbo's coworkers, Sergio Fernandez, climbed onto the back of the truck and then into the truck's front seat between Lam and Castro. The truck suddenly accelerated, knocking Corbo backward. His left foot was crushed against the metal staircase.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs sued Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company for products liability, alleging defective design and failure to warn. Plaintiffs contended that the machine was defectively designed, allowing for inadvertent activation of its directional switch. Plaintiffs also claimed that Taylor-Dunn failed to warn of this propensity. Plaintiff Lydia Corbo sued for Loss of Consortium.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company contended that the machine was misused in an unforeseeable manner and Christopher Corbo had himself been contributorily negligent in standing in front of the truck while it was stopped.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, several other defendants settled with plaintiffs for $8 Million.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiffs damages of $10,210,707, and assigned Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company 9 percent of fault. The jury rejected plaintiffs' claim that the truck was defectively designed under either the consumer expectation test or the risk-benefit test. The jury found that Taylor-Dunn was only liable under a failure to warn theory. Following the jury's verdict, Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company filed a partial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that plaintiff failed to establish that a failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing the subject incident based on the absence of testimony by Plaintiff and others involved in the accident that they would have heeded the proposed warnings. The court granted the JNOV and found that Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company was correct in its contention that there was no evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that it was more likely than not that the accident would not have occurred if one of the warnings proposed by Plaintiff had been provided. The court vacated the Judgment against Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company. Judgment was entered for defendant.

Other Information

Plaintiffs intend to appeal the ruling.