Tenth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict in Negligent Design Case Against Manufacturer of Truck-Mounted Drill Rig

An Oklahoma rig worker brought suit for strict product liability and negligent design against the manufacturer of a truck-mounted drill rig after suffering catastrophic injuries from becoming entwined in the rig’s auger.  On the strict product liability claim, Oklahoma law requires a plaintiff to show that a defect 1) caused the injury; 2) existed at the time it left the manufacturer’s control; and 3) made the product unreasonably dangerous.  The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on this claim, concluding that the worker failed to establish that the product was unreasonably dangerous, defined in Oklahoma as posing a danger beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the strict product liability claim, reasoning that the worker, who knew that the product was dangerous and that prior owners had removed or disabled safety devices, “chose to roll the dice.”

On appeal of a jury verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the negligent design claim, the worker argued that the judge should not have provided an assumption of risk instruction to the jury. But the Tenth Circuit found that the record was sufficient for such an instruction given the worker’s appreciation of a very specific and identifiable risk and his decision to continue operating the equipment in spite of that risk.  The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district judge allowing the worker’s expert to testify only that his suggested alternative design worked in his lab as opposed to testifying that it worked in the field given that the alternative design had not yet been tested in the field.  Similarly, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in limiting the evidence on negligent design to events occurring prior to 1992, when the manufacturer first sold the piece of equipment while certain safety mechanisms were operational, which excluded evidence of a 2008 accident involving a similar piece of equipment.