Camacho v. JLG Indus. Inc.

93 Cal.App.5th 809

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 372

Raul CAMACHO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.JLG INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant and Respondent.

G060892

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

Filed July 19, 2023

Greenberg and Ruby Injury Attorneys and Emily A. Ruby, Los Angeles; Stalwart Law Group, Dylan Ruga and Brian Poulter, Riverside; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey I. Ehrlich for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Tucker Ellis and Peter L. Choate, Los Angeles; McCoy Leavitt Laskey and Jeffrey E. Zinder, Mission Hills; McCoy Leavitt Laskey, Brook Laskey and Stephanie Demers for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE, J.

" ‘ "A product ... is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor ...." ’ " ( Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 110, 142, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 127 ( Trejo ).)

Workers often fail to take safety precautions, even when the danger may be apparent. No worker would intentionally put her hand in a position to be crushed by an industrial punch press machine, but that risk of injury is foreseeable. (See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Seal Methods, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 405, 407–409, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 895.) That is why manufacturers often design industrial machines with safety devices that require workers to place both of their hands on the controls in order to activate the machine. ( Ibid. )

Raul Camacho was installing glass panels when he fell out of a scissor lift manufactured by JLG Industries Inc. (JLG). Camacho failed to latch a chain that was designed to guard the lift's entrance (as shown in appendix A). Camacho sued JLG for strict products liability, failure to warn, and related claims.

At a jury trial, Camacho alleged the scissor lift as designed with the chain invited human error, and the foreseeable risk of harm could have been avoided if JLG had marketed only its alternative design with a self-closing gate (as shown in appendix B). Camacho also alleged there was a defective warning label on the lift. At the close of evidence, JLG moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion. The court ruled in order to show causation Camacho needed to prove if the chain been latched, "the accident would have happened anyway." We disagree.

To overcome the directed verdict motion, Camacho only needed to make a prima facie showing that the scissor lift as designed with a chain was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. That is, Camacho only needed to make a prima facie showing that the alternative design with the self-closing gate would have prevented his fall. Under a risk-benefit test, it was then JLG's burden to prove the benefits of the chain outweighed its risks. (See Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1302–1303, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 326.)

We find Camacho made a prima facie showing of causation. Based largely on the photographs, it appears the scissor lift as designed with the chain was a substantial factor in causing Camacho's injuries. That is, the jury could have reasonably inferred that had a self-closing gate been in place, Camacho's fall would have been prevented. Of course, we are uncertain how the jurors would have ultimately decided the issue, but they should have been permitted to do so. (See Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112, 120, 184 Cal.Rptr. 891, 649 P.2d 224 ( Campbell ) ["Unless very unusual circumstances exist, this type of claim presents a factual issue which can only be resolved by the trier of fact"].)

We also find the jurors could have reasonably inferred JLG's allegedly defective warning label was also a substantial factor in causing Camacho's injuries.

Thus, we reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to vacate its order granting JLG's motion for a directed verdict.

IFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 2015, R. Gillette was a project manager for a subcontractor hired to do the glazing work (glass installation) for a new hotel being built in Huntington Beach. Gillette supervised 15 to 20 glazers, with crews in various areas of the hotel.

On December 7, 2015, two new hires arrived at the job site, T. Figueroa, and Camacho. Gillette conducted a 30-minute orientation regarding the scissor lift the two men were about to use. Gillette "showed them how to latch the chain and told them that the chain had to be latched at all times." Both men demonstrated to Gillette that they were capable of operating the lift.

Because Figueroa had more experience, it was decided he would take the lead of the two-man crew and operate the scissor lift, which had a platform that was 30 inches wide by six feet long. Figueroa could raise or lower the platform using a control panel at the opposite end from the entrance. An upper-level guard rail (42 inches high) surrounded all four sides of the platform. A mid-level guard rail (21 inches high) and a four-inch toe board surrounded three sides of the platform. There was not a mid-level guard rail, nor a toe board, at the lift's entrance.

When installing glass panels, glazers typically set the glass on material (dunnage) so it will not be damaged. Drywall can be used as dunnage, but Gillette preferred wooden two-by-fours because they elevate the glass panels off the platform, making the glass easier to pick up. Throughout the day and into the following day, Gillette periodically watched Figueroa and Camacho using the scissor lift as they installed glass panels in the lobby. At all times, the chain on the scissor lift was latched at the entrance and two-by-fours were being used as dunnage.

On their second day on the job, at about 3:50 p.m., Figueroa and Camacho were on the platform, which was about 12 feet off the ground. They both picked up a large glass panel they were about to install. As the two men were lifting the glass panel, Camacho fell off the lift through the entrance. Figueroa saw Camacho "when he started going down. I saw him falling."¹

The general contractor's superintendent assisted in an investigation of the accident. The superintendent had worked at construction sites for over 30 years. Part of his job was to document safety issues. The superintendent said a common safety issue was workers failing to latch the chain on scissor lifts; in fact, he had seen that occur at every project.

A photograph of the scissor lift taken just after the accident showed there were three glass panels near the entrance (as shown in appendix C). The superintendent said, "the chain was trapped behind a piece of glass." There was also drywall on the platform being used as dunnage, which was broken at the lift's entrance.

Court Proceedings

Camacho sued JLG for strict products liability, failure to warn, and related claims. Camacho's wife sued JLG for loss of consortium.

At the start of a jury trial, Camacho's counsel said: "Our theory of liability with respect to the chain ... is that it invites human error." Counsel said there was an available alternative safer design: "a spring loaded self-latching gate with a ... toe board." JLG's counsel responded: "Either one, chain or gate, is safe when used properly." The parties stipulated Camacho suffered a brain injury as the result of his fall. Figueroa testified as a percipient witness. Camacho was unable to testify due to his injuries. Both parties presented expert witness testimony (some portions will be summarized in the discussion section of this opinion).

At the close of evidence, JLG moved for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion, finding Camacho "failed to present substantial evidence of causation and that JLG is entitled to a directed verdict on all ... causes of action."

IIDISCUSSION

Camacho contends the trial court applied the wrong legal standard regarding causation as to his design defect and failure to warn claims. We agree.

A trial court cannot grant a defendant's motion for a directed verdict if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the plaintiff's claims. (See Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338, 349, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 173.)

Our review is de novo. (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 480, 509, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 523.)

"The rules for reviewing a directed verdict are fairly strict." ( O'Shea v. Lindenberg (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 228, 235, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 654 ( O'Shea ).) The evidence of the party opposing the motion " ‘ " ‘must be accepted as true and conflicting evidence must be disregarded.’ " ’ " ( Ibid. ) "Unless it can be said that, as a matter of law, no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence ... a court is not justified in taking a case from a jury and itself rendering the decision." ( Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co. (1930) 210 Cal. 108, 117, 291 P. 184.)

In this discussion, we shall: A) review relevant legal principles; B) summarize additional trial evidence; and C) analyze the facts as applied to the law.

A. Relevant Legal Principles

Products liability law broadly refers to a manufacturer's legal responsibility for injuries resulting from the use of a product. (See Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 63, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897.) "The purpose of such liability is to ensure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons ...." ( Ibid. )

"Under California law, a manufacturer is strictly liable for injuries caused by a product that is (1) defectively manufactured, (2) defectively designed, or (3) distributed without adequate instructions or warnings of its potential for harm." ( Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 715–716, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722.)

"A design defect exists when the product is built in accordance with its intended specifications, but the design itself is inherently defective." ( Chavez v. Glock, Inc., su...