Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ps were employed as carpenters by DeLuca. Ps were putting shingles on a roof when the platform staging on which they were working collapsed, causing Ps to fall to the ground and sustain severe injuries. Immediately prior to the collapse, Ps were working on a wooden plank attached to the roof by roof brackets designed and manufactured by D and purchased from Ring's End. The planking suddenly fell out from under them, and they fell to the ground. Almost immediately after the plaintiffs fell, Gene Marini, the general superintendent at DeLuca, discovered one of the roof brackets used by the plaintiffs in a distorted condition on the ground near where they fell. Ps brought this product liability action against D alleging that it had designed and manufactured defective roof brackets, which were utilized by Ps in the hanging of shingles. Prior to trial, Ps filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to exclude evidence of any alleged negligence on the part of DeLuca, Ps' employer, and to deny Ds' request to charge the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause. Ds introduced evidence, through expert testimony, that DeLuca had violated the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations by failing to provide additional fall protection for Ps while they were working on the roof. The trial court instructed the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause. D got the verdict, and Ps appealed. Ps claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the doctrine of superseding cause because: (1) the plaintiffs' injuries were not outside the scope of the risk created by Ds' misconduct in manufacturing and selling a defective product; and (2) any negligence on the part of DeLuca was not the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries. Ds claim the combined negligence of Ps, DeLuca, and Manizza, constituted sufficient evidence of a superseding cause.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co