Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligenceappealsummary judgment
negligenceappealsummary judgment

Related Cases

DeBusscher v. Sam’s East, Inc., 505 F.3d 475
View Case »
Smulczeski v. City Center of Music & Drama, Inc., nan
View Case »
Fontaine v. Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans, 625 So.2d 548
View Case »
Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 340 N.E.2d 444, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1
View Case »
Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners, 21 Cal.4th 28, 980 P.2d 407, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 855, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6021, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7725
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc., 731 F.3d 1081, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,233

Facts

Derek Braswell was operating a Cincinnati press brake when he reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal, accidentally triggering the machine's ram, which crushed his arm. The machine had warnings against reaching into the die area, and its safety features, including a gated footswitch, had been disabled or removed by previous owners. After the accident, Braswell filed a lawsuit against Cincinnati, claiming the press brake was defectively designed and negligently manufactured.

Derek Braswell was operating a Cincinnati press brake when he reached into the die area to remove a jammed piece of metal, accidentally triggering the machine's ram, which crushed his arm.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the press brake was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and whether Braswell's negligence claims were valid.

The main legal issues were whether the press brake was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, and whether Braswell's negligence claims were valid.

Rule

Under Oklahoma law, a product is considered unreasonably dangerous if it poses a danger beyond what an ordinary consumer would expect, and a manufacturer is not liable for modifications made to a product that are the intervening cause of an injury.

Under Oklahoma law, a product is considered unreasonably dangerous if it poses a danger beyond what an ordinary consumer would expect, and a manufacturer is not liable for modifications made to a product that are the intervening cause of an injury.

Analysis

The court applied the consumer expectations test to determine that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous, as it included adequate warnings and safety features that an ordinary operator would understand. The court noted that the modifications made to the machine were not unforeseeable and that the warnings provided were sufficient to inform users of the dangers associated with the machine's operation.

The court applied the consumer expectations test to determine that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous, as it included adequate warnings and safety features that an ordinary operator would understand.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati, concluding that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous and that Braswell had waived his negligence claims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati, concluding that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous and that Braswell had waived his negligence claims.

Who won?

Cincinnati, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous and that the modifications made to the machine were not the manufacturer's responsibility.

Cincinnati, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the press brake was not unreasonably dangerous and that the modifications made to the machine were not the manufacturer's responsibility.

You must be