Facts

In Nov. 1998, plaintiff Kevin Turner, in his role as the mountain manager for the Homewood Ski Resort on Lake Tahoe, purchased 10 two-inch ball valves (model number T- 585-70) that were manufactured by Northern Indiana Brass Company (NIBCO). He purchased the valves from Western Nevada Supply Company so that they could be installed on its northside snowmaking system at the resort. The snowmaking system at Homewood used ball valves to connect 2-foot metal hydrants to the aboveground 6-inch main water line. The snow guns were then attached to the top of the metal hydrants. Three NIBCO valves were installed on the resorts snowmaking systems before the accident.

On Dec. 7, 1998, Turner was checking a repair to the main water line on the northside snowmaking system when the system exploded due to unreleased compressed air. A two-foot metal hydrant at the top of the right-hand line violently separated from the northside system at the point where a NIBCO valve connected it to the main line. The metal hydrant struck Turner in the middle of his forehead and caused massive blunt trauma to his head. It was undisputed by the parties that at sometime after the installation of the NIBCO valve, but before the Dec. 7 accident, water had remained in the cavity of the valve, which then froze and expanded, causing the valve to deform and push the end cap of the valve away from the body of the valve.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Turner contended that the design of the valve was defective because the "floating ball" of the valve allowed the cavity to fill with water even if it was closed and the system was pressurized. The plaintiff further contended that the design did not perform safely in that its mode of failure was to separate into two pieces and that its design was a substantial factor in causing the accident and his injuries.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that Homewood's snowmaking system could not have produced sufficient pressure to force water into the NIBCO accident valve when it was closed; and that it filled with water because the Homewood employees failed to properly drain the system. The defense further contended that the cause of the accident was Homewood's negligent design of its snowmaking system for failing to have a dedicated air-release valve; failing to follow its procedures to properly drain the system; and the negligence of plaintiff and another Homewood employee for failing to follow its procedures to properly bleed the air out of the system when checking the repair to the main water line on the day of the accident.

Settlement Discussions

No settlement demand from plaintiff prior to the re-trial. The defendants jointly offered $25,000.

Damages

The plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award plaintiff damages of approximately $2 million.

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered traumatic brain injury and initial critical injuries involving severe facial fractures. One witness stated that plaintiff's nose had been pushed behind his eyes. The plaintiff's long-term and permanent injuries included facial scars and disfigurement, complete loss of smell (anosmia), partial loss of taste, almost constant headaches, poor peripheral vision and some double vision, as well as new and more recent diagnosis of frontal lobe syndrome that is caused by trauma to the front part of the brain and resulted in permanent changes to plaintiff's personality and executive functioning. The jury heard eloquent and moving testimony from both the plaintiff and his wife on the effects of the personality changes caused by frontal lobe syndrome.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

The plaintiff intends to move for a new trial. The defendants will be filing a considerable cost bill based on beating its statutory offer of settlement. This was the retrial of a single cause of action for Product Liability Design Defect Consumer Expectation test from a case that was first tried over a three-month period in 2004 involving multiple causes of action for strict products liability including design defect, manufacturing defect and failure to warn and negligence against the same defendants. In the retrial, a new jury once again found that the valve was defectively designed under the consumer expectation test but concluded that the negligence of the Homewood Ski Resort in its design and operation of its snowmaking system was a superceding cause of the accident. According to plaintiff's counsel, in the initial trial, it appeared that the jury answered the special verdict form in a way that established liability and proximate cause but assigned zero fault to the defendant thus establishing an inconsistent verdict. The trial court therefore granted plaintiff's motion for new trial and the Court of Appeals determined that the single claim of Design Defect Consumer Expectation Test needed to be retried. According to defense counsel, the Court of Appeals determined the single claim need to be retried because of an ambiguous answer to one of the over 29 questions the jury had to answer on the special verdict form. In the retrial, the defense contended that plaintiff was able to refine his liability arguments based on the feedback he had gotten from the jurors in the first trial, and was also able to present a far more compelling damages case. The defense was able to persuade the jury through voir dire questioning and closing argument to consider the facts and evidence relating to the liability issues separately from the injuries and to agree not to consider how to adequately compensate plaintiff until they had actually found the defendants liable for plaintiff's injuries. The jury agreed with the defense that the only entity legally responsible for plaintiff's injuries and damages was his employer, the Homewood Ski Resort. The jury concluded that Homewood's negligence was a superseding cause of the accident. FILING DATE: Dec. 7, 1999.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

10-2

Length

14 days