Lavin v. Conte

2017 WL 3159682 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Charles Lavin purchased a boat hoist and a canopy frame manufactured and sold by D. Charles also purchased a vinyl canopy from D. 1D did not manufacture the vinyl canopy, but did manufacture and design the canopy frame and the method by which to attach the canopy to the frame. Charles planned to use the hoist and the canopy assembly for his pontoon boat. Charles assembled the boat hoist on dry land and then transported it into the lake where he planned to stow the pontoon boat. Charles also assembled the canopy frame and attached the frame to the boat hoist. Charles, Vanessa, Eduardo Conte, and John Lavin were present when the boat was launched and they brought the pontoon to the lift and put the pontoon on the lift. The group decided to install the canopy on the boat hoist. They 'cranked the boat up as high as we could with the fabric on it, and then we fed it up through the top of the canopy.' The four attempted to install the canopy on the canopy frame. Vanessa stood on the pontoon seat of the boat, held the canopy overhead. Vanessa fell into the water headfirst and severed her spinal cord and was rendered a quadriplegic. P sued D. The vinyl canopy did not come with instructions or an assembly sheet. Charles claims he spoke with Ronald Wiltse, D's vice president, regarding the best way to install the canopy which was to get the boat up as high as you can and make sure there is no wind. D contracted with another company to supply the vinyl canopy to fit the frame. D designed and manufactured the method by which the vinyl attached to the frame, which attached to the boat hoist. D included assembly sheets for the frame, but not for the vinyl canopy and D did not provide any other instructions on how to install the canopy. Wiltse testified that it was up to the customer to decide how to safely install the vinyl canopy. Wiltse was asked if it was foreseeable that people would try and get on the boats and/or climb on the lift to get the vinyl on top of the framing structure? He responded that 'People are capable of doing anything, you know. That's a wide-open question there.' He also claimed that “People are probably getting on their boats which . . . we warn the heck out of them . . . it's just something they should not be doing. But . . . if people invested the time or the money into ladders, maybe built a dock around the hoist to prevent that from happening, it would be a much easier way to put it on.” The hoist contained the word 'danger' and several warnings on stickers stating, 'failure to follow below instructions will result in uncontrolled spindown and possible personal injury and or hoist damage . . . . Do not work or play on, around, or under hoist with boat in.' Additionally, what appears to be a separate sticker states, 'Warning . . . SAFETY PRECAUTIONS' and continues, 'Do not allow people to occupy your craft or stand on the guideon while hoist is in raised position. CABLE BREAKAGE CAN OCCUR AT ANY TIME.' That sticker also states, 'Do not work on craft in raised position.' Bartley Eckhardt, a licensed engineer, 'developed a safer alternative design that permits people to install the canopy structure and the canvas while working from ground level.' He testified that his design changes were a net neutral cost. The only difference for his design was you need a little bit more tubing in the corners, and the gusseting arrangement is a little bit different. The parts that have to be added are essentially inconsequential to the price. Ps alleged product liability, negligent design and manufacture, failure to warn, and breach of implied or express warranties, along with negligence, gross negligence and breach of warranties against D. D moved for summary disposition for negligent design and manufacture because Ps could not establish there was a safer alternative design, and the boat hoist was in its intended condition. D also argued that the stickers on the boat hoist warned consumers not to work from a boat while it was on the hoist in a raised position. Ps argued that a safer alternative design existed in the form of Eckhardt's design, which Ps asserted Eckhardt created to eliminate risks associated with designs such as D's. Ps argued that Dt failed to warn in connection with foreseeable use or misuse The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of D. Ps appealed.