Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_________________
________________________________
on brief for appellant.
Lenahan O'Connell, with whom O'Connell and O'Connell was on br
_________________
_______________________
for appellee.
____________________
January 5, 1995
____________________
Master Unit
adverse
judgment
Defendant and
Die Products,
dismissing
third-party plain-
Inc. ("MUD"),
its cross-claim
appeals from
for
"Trueblood").
of law entered by
As the
contribution
Trueblood, Inc.
findings
of
I
I
fact and
do not permit
an
we vacate
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________
In 1966,
plastic-molding press
press
with the
was equipped
containing an
plastic
frames.
Once
the
frames (not
could affix to
required quick-change
sold a
a die
the first frame off to one side, the press would inject liquified
plastic into the
die-mold on
From
recessed
out" plate built into the sidelined frame which thrust up through
the filled
die-mold, thereby
the hardened
ed, the shuttle table shifted the frame containing the empty diemold
back
plastic,
into a
central position
for
the next
injection of
while the press shifted and "knocked out" the twin die-
three settings.
operate.
the
In
the "off"
mode, the
entire
cycle of
operator and
press would
not
functions described
above, but
the press
the console,
that the
operator's hands
in operation.
press operator
could
manually depressing
leaving
cled,"
perform
each
from "off"
plate then
into
the press
the
cycle
manually
knockout
designed to allow
opening in
jammed knockout
triggering
by
the ejection
to dislodge a
the
quick-change frame
while
function in
free hand.
____ ____
to "hand,"
in position.
part,
thereby thrusting
plastic
In the
switched
the
which meant
the
"eject"
plate or
button
into
the
possession
Touch
of
Styletek,
Inc.,
in
Lowell,
was operating
On October
the
11, 1989,
Trueblood press
and
Styletek
in
the
"automatic" mode
became jammed
when one
in the
of
the MUD
"up" position.
frame's knockout
With
plates
Nan
"automatic"
knockout plate
of two fingers
June
against MUD
1992,
Nan Touch
in the
instituted
District of
this
diversity
Massachusetts, alleging
trade practices,
L. Ann.
ch.
hand into
the ejection
to permit a press
area during
operator to insert a
operation.
MUD
impleaded
among joint
tortfeasors), alleging
that the
"one-handed" design of
Touch's injury.
automatic recycling of
Touch settled
with MUD.
MUD's
third-party
complaint for
to the court.
and entered
The
the following
contribution against
and con-
clusions of law:
As to the defectiveness of the molding press,
MUD has failed to establish that two-hand
4
Nan Touch v. Master Unit Die Prods., Inc., No. 92-11493-EFH, slip
_________
____________________________
II
II
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________
We
review interpretations
of state
law de
__
novo, see
____ ___
Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 233-35 (1991), and
____________________
_______
findings of fact for clear
conclude that
("In
(1st Cir.
1993).
the Massachu-
dence.
to
that the
of fact unsupported
court shall
by the evi-
find the
product liability
markedly
from tort-based
is insufficiently clear
facts specially
and state
Under
for breach
separately its
Massa-
claims differ
of warranty.
a negligence-based product
5
. . . the
applicable
law, negligence-based
claims
for we
The
liability
claim
turer
_____
reveals a
failure "to
use reasonable
care to
Colter
______
(Mass. 1989).
unreasonable risk
1305, 1313
or manufacturer
met
the
eliminate
pertinent
industry
safety
of manufacture would be
__ ___________
that the
standards
material, albeit
________
defendant was
not negligent,
___
with safety
a breach of warranty
the product
_______
the [actual]
or the seller.'"
Colter, 525
___ ________
N.E.2d at 1313
warranty inquiry
ableness of the
______
__ ___ ______
is
not concerned
(explaining
even
if he "[took] all
safe"), compliance
the
___
Because the
with the
reason-
Correia v.
_______
(Mass. 1983)
reasonable measures to
with "state of
Back v.
____
standards at
__
time the product was designed or manufactured is usually im____ ___ _______ ___ ________ __ ____________ __ _______ ___
material.
________
v. Ariens Co.,
__________
(Mass. 1984).
breach of
warranty
design
post-manufacture
protect was
safety
standard
was
intended
to
breach of
warranty "regardless of
the knowledge
of
risks that he actually had or reasonably should have had when the
sale took place").
Moreover,
safety
although
nonconformance with
the trier of
fact to find
a present-day
___________
dangerous"
per se, see, e.g., Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co., 942 F.2d 48, 52 (1st
___ __ ___ ____ _______
_____________
Cir.
1991)
(OSHA
regulations do
incorporation of a
dangerous condition
not
preempt
might be
state
tort law
Indeed, even
perceived as a
found "reasonable" in
the circum-
N.E.2d
at
970
(listing
the
factors
to
be
See Back,
___ ____
weighed
in
"'the gravity of
the danger
posed by
the challenged
design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechani-
an
improved design,
and
the
adverse
consequences to
the
of Massachu-
setts law, the findings entered by the district court are plainly
deficient.
press may
___
regulations" pro-
operation
was the
mechanical
industry
________
power presses
in
__
standard for
________
the manufacturing
1966," strongly
____
suggest that
of
the
district court viewed any such OSHA violation as simply immaterial to Trueblood's liability.
the parties,
clearly would be
material to
the
was "unreason-
______
conclusion that the Trueblood press was
per se.
___ __
Yet
the
"unfairness" of
manufactured
district court's
applying the
observation concerning
1992 OSHA
standards to
the
a product
"unreasonably dangerous"
conclusion.
see Cosme
___ _____
such a
breach
of warranty
claims
are
not rendered
defeasible
simply
by the
passage
of time).
In addition,
the
district
a durable product
the
purpose and
principles upon
See Colter,
___ ______
which breach
525 N.E.2d at
of the
press, is
strict
out of step
product liability
of warranty liability
is founded.
policy demands
that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption
them, and be
be obtained;
entitled
and the
and
that the
to the maximum of
proper persons
consumer
of such
protection at the
to afford it
products
is
hands of someone,
are those
who market
the
402A cmt. c.
(1965))).
Finally, we
court ruling as
to how,
or whether,
balancing was
performed to
feature
the press
made
in the district
the required
determine if the
"unreasonably"
____________
risk/utility
one-handed control
dangerous.
The
court
risk/utility
balancing
introduced
evidence that
additional
cost
test
component,
Trueblood had
feasible,
"safer"
though
available
design
MUD
at slight
alternatives.
Trueblood
countered with
essential
the work
area to
"reasonably"
unjam
safe design
evidence that
even
to
a knockout
provided
9
one-handed control
plate, and
that
the manufacturers
it was
was
of quick-
change frames
did not
incorporate
accommodate
(if either)
evidentiary proffer
emphasize that
appellate
neither
the conclusions of
ruling,
nor
decision
the
an opening
We in no
law,
but simply
utterly impracticable
the applicable
are
As we
when
essential
under
to
should be credited,
review is
findings of
large enough
to
a principled
discernible from
its
decision.
52(a) requirements
sions
to
ensure
function;
to
that its
enable a
ratio decidendi
_____ _________
reviewing
essential
findings of
be stated specially,
the Rule
and conclu-
clarity
the
that facts
in the past,
is
set forth
court reliably
with enough
to
perform its
conclusions of law
de novo and
__ ____
fact for
clear
error.
See, e.g.,
___ ____
1158,
895
F.2d 830, 842 (1st Cir. 1990); Applewood Landscape & Nursery
_____________________________
Co.
___
v. Hollingsworth,
_____________
884
F.2d
1502,
1503 (1st
Cir.
1989);
Pearson v.
_______
Fair, 808 F.2d 163, 165-66 & n.2 (1st Cir. 1986) (per
____
curiam) (explaining
ry")
(citing
(1960));
Commissioner
____________
v.
Duberstein, 363
__________
U.S.
278,
292
618 F.2d 137, 143 (1st Cir. 1980); see also 9 Charles A. Wright &
___ ____
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
_______________________________
2571,
at 679
The
Each
parties urge
proposes
plausible
us
to salvage
interpretations of
success
of fact
in
divining
and predicate
the
the present
the
appeal.
evidence
and
district
court's
conclusions of
law.
essential
We note,
with
Fed.
necessary expense
and delay
occasioned in
this case
simply by
As neither
party sought
reconsideration under
11