Keith Ashe and Connie Ashe v. Teco, Inc., Teco Pneumatic, Inc.
Published: Jun. 13, 1998 | Result Date: Feb. 20, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 130956 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Shasta Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
John L. Chase
(medical)
Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)
Glen R. Stevick Ph.D., PE
(technical)
Paul F. Youngdahl
(technical)
McGee Williams
(medical)
Gregory W. Sells
(medical)
Lee Vranna
(medical)
Joseph Busey
(medical)
Defendant
Alvin E. Brooker
(medical)
P. Thomas Blotter
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff Keith Ashe, a 30-year-old tree trimmer was employed by Davey Tree Surgery Company. The employer purchased a new Saturn S5-50 aerial manlift from Teco Inc. in March 1992. Manuals supplied with the manlift required that the bolts attaching the turret for the manlift to the heavy duty truck chassis be checked monthly for tightness and annually for proper torque. In October 1985, Teco Inc. issued a service bulletin to purchasers of the S5-50 manlift reminding owners to check the tightness and torquing of the attachment bolts per the schedule set out in the manuals to prevent the bolts from becoming loose. This service bulletin was re-issued in June 1993 after an accident where the attachment bolts failed on S5-50 models. Defendant reported that investigation of that accident showed that as many as nine of the 24 attachment bolts had stress-fractured completely through, well prior to the failure of the remaining bolts causing the accident. On Aug. 13, 1993, a three-page engineering bulletin was issued by Teco after three more of the bolt failure accidents occurred, all showing substantial numbers of stress or fatigue fractures in as many as nine of the original bolts. Per defendant, investigation of these accidents showed failure of the owner/operator to properly maintain the attachment bolts allowed them to come loose, allowing fatigue and stress fractures to begin and spread in the loosened bolts. The Aug. 13, 1993, engineering bulletin stated that immediate action was required to replace all attachment bolts, torque the new bolts to a higher than previous level, check the bolts for tightness on a 30 day basis, check the torque on the bolts every year and replace the entire set of attachment bolts if any loose bolts were detected during the monthly tightness check, but, per plaintiff, did not tell customers of all the prior failures. This bulletin was sent out by Teco along with the new replacement bolts to all purchasers of the S5-50, including the S5-50 involved in this accident. When the bulletin was received at Davey Tree, the equipment and operations manager wrote a separate memorandum to the appropriate field supervisor for each S5-50 in the fleet. The memorandum called for immediate implementation of the measures set out in the Teco bulletin and included the replacement bolts for each lift. The Davey Tree memorandum attached a copy of the Teco bulletin. The Davey Tree memorandum was dated Sept. 9, 1993, nearly three years before the plaintiff's accident. On July 3, 1996, the plaintiff was operating the aerial manlift when it collapsed. The plaintiff and his wife brought this action against the defendants based on product liability and negligence theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $2.2 million to $2.7 million. The defendant offered $850,000.
Specials in Evidence
$160,000 $65,000 $1,235,000 plus $800,000 loss of consortium and unspecified punitive damages. Intervenor sought to recover $109,000 in worker's compensation benefits paid to time of trial, not including temporary and total work disability benefits $600,000 - $800,000
Injuries
The plaintiff claimed severe, comminuted pylon fracture of the right tibia extending into ankle joint requiring open reduction, internal fixation (use of cane, significant limp, possible ankle fusion in the future), multiple broken ribs, punctured lung, alleged cervical disc herniation at C4-5 (possible cervical fusion in the future), closed head injury with mild to moderate cognitive impairment, loss of sense of taste and smell and alleged altered personality. The plaintiff also claimed to require ongoing orthopedic and psychological care with cognitive retraining, potential for return to part-time, sedentary work limited by cognitive impairment arising from closed head injury. The plaintiff further claimed he was severely brain damaged and would never return to pre-accident income levels if he returned to work at all. Defense expert Dr. Brooker testified that although he did suffer a serious head injury in the accident, he had made remarkable progress and with the current cognitive retraining program and adequate initial support, he could return to productive work close to his pre-accident income. The plaintiff wife claimed loss of consortium.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and five months after the case was filed. A mediation was held on July 22, 1997, before retired Judge Raul Ramirez resulting in no settlement. Thereafter, judicial settlement conferences were held on November 17 and twice in December before Judge Jack Halpin of Shasta Superior Court, which did not resolve the matter. POST-TRIAL MOTIONS: The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was granted. The defendant appealed the order granting a new trial.
Deliberation
one day (6½ hours)
Poll
10-2 (no design defect), 12-0 (no manufacturing defect), 12-0 (no warning necessary), 12-0 (no negligence)
Length
15 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390