Facts

In November 2000, on Treasure Island in San Francisco, plaintiff James Duffy, a landscaper, was trimming grass
with a Shindaiwa T270 grass trimmer. A Shindaiwa T270 grass trimmer is a handheld device commonly
known as a weed-whacker. After his supervisor changed the nylon grass-trimming device with a steel blade,
the plaintiff took over with the trimmer. The plaintiffÆs supervisor observed him operate the trimmer for a few
minutes before leaving him alone. The plaintiff had his left hand on the handlebar (located in the middle of the
shaft), and his right hand on the throttle (located near the rear). Although the harness was around his shoulder,
it was disconnected from the machine. The plaintiff then grabbed the handlebar using his right hand so he
could use his left hand to shield his face from flying grass. Simultaneously, the blade hit a rock or other hard
object embedded in the ground. This caused a "kickback," where the blade end of the trimmer swings
upwards. The plaintiff was severely injured when his left hand made contact with the spinning steel.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff sued manufacturer Shindaiwa Inc., Tulatin, Oregon, for products liability. He alleged design defect, failure to warn and failure to meet consumer expectations of safety. The plaintiff contended the accident happened because the trimmer did not have a barrier bar which was standard in later models. The barrier bar is an eight-inch bar extending from the shaft. Its purpose is to stop backward motion of the machine during kickback. The plaintiff's expert engineer testified that the warnings on the product failed to meet the appropriate American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. He contended the warnings should have been larger, more colorful, and in multiple languages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's failure to utilize the shoulder harness. The shoulder harness connects to the machine at its balance point. If the operator holds the trimmer by the handle without utilizing the harness, in the event of a kickback the heavy engine end will go toward the ground and the lighter blade end will swing upwards. There was nothing weighing the machine down when Duffy took his hand off the machine to protect his face. This enabled the blade to swing up and make contact with his hand. The defendant's engineering expert showed how the accident would have been prevented if the plaintiff had been using the harness. The defendant's engineering expert also demonstrated how a barrier bar would not have avoided the accident.

In response to the plaintiff's claims of failure to warn, the chairman of the ANSI committee that concerns itself with grass trimmers and brush cutters testified on behalf of the defense that the trimmer in question met all applicable ANSI standards.

Settlement Discussions

There was a $12,501 offer under C.C.P. 998.

Specials in Evidence

$99,705 $163,918 $28,870

Injuries

The plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his left (dominant) hand. His left ring finger was amputated at the first joint, and his little finger was severely broken. Further, he suffered many lacerations with several severed tendons in the left, major hand. This left him with residual pain and severe loss of use of most function in his left hand. The plaintiff's vocational rehabilitation expert testified plaintiff could no longer work.

Result

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense on all claims.

Other Information

The defendant has filed its cost bill totaling $52,985. This includes expert costs under C.C.P. Section 998.

Deliberation

65 minutes

Poll

12-0 (design defect-risk benefit), 12-0 (negligence), 11-1 (failure to warn)

Length

seven days