Shujauddin v. Berger Bldg. Prods.

1

KHOKAR SHUJAUDDIN, et al. Plaintiffs v. BERGER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., et al. Defendants

Civil Action No. 19-0876

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 18, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this civil action arising out of a workplace injury, Plaintiff Khokar Shujauddin (“Plaintiff”) and his wife Plaintiff Najma Shuja, assert claims of strict product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium against numerous defendants, including Defendant The Heim Group (“Heim”). [ECF 43]. Discovery ensued and completed.

Before this Court is Heim's motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims against it. [ECF 122]. Plaintiff opposes the motion. [ECF 126].^[1]The issues raised in the motion have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for summary judgment is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

BACKGROUND

When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider all record evidence and relevant facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party-here, Plaintiff. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 255 (1986); Galena v. Leone, 638 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2011). The facts relevant to this motion for summary judgment are summarized as follows:^[2]

In 1984, Heim designed and manufactured a power punch press (the “press” or the “Heim press”), an industrial machine used to produce metal parts, and sold it to a company called Royal Apex. Defendant Omnimax International (“Omnimax”) acquired Royal Apex and the Heim press around 2005.

Point-of-Operation Guarding

At the time of sale to Royal Apex, and as designed by Heim the press did not include any guarding at the “point of operation,” which is the area where the press meets with a “die” attached to form metal parts. While acknowledging that guarding is essential for the safe operation of the press, Heim's position was-and remains-that users of the press are responsible for installation of guarding at the point of operation.^[3]

After Omnimax purchased the Heim press, Omnimax installed a point-of-operation guard that was on the press at the time of Plaintiff's injury. The guard installed by Omnimax was not “interlocked” or “interlocking,” but rather flipped on its hinges into a “down” position so that users could reach into the point of operation. Users were able to operate the press while the guard was either in place or in the down position. In contrast, an interlocked guard prevents operation of a press until the guard is in place.

Foot Pedal & Replacement

Heim built the press with a foot pedal designed and manufactured by Linemaster. The foot pedal allows users to operate the press using only their foot. No hand involvement is needed. The Linemaster foot pedal contained an “antitrip” safety mechanism that required two steps by the user to activate the machine. Notably, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) regulations did not mandate this type of antitrip foot pedal. This anti-trip mechanism was intended to prevent inadvertent operation of the press and resulting injury. The Linemaster foot pedal was attached at the time Omnimax purchased the press from Royal Apex.

In 2014, Omnimax purchased a replacement foot pedal from Defendant Automation Direct (“Automation Direct”) and installed it on the Heim press. A representative of Automation Direct described the company as “the Amazon.com of factory automation.” (Gary Marchuk Dep. Tr., Heim's Mot. Ex. D, ECF 122-4, at 9:13-14). The new foot pedal was designed and manufactured by Defendant Comepi S.R.L. (“Comepi”). The Comepi foot pedal did not include an anti-trip mechanism, and required only one step and minimal force to activate.

Plaintiff's Press Experience and Injury

Plaintiff is originally from Pakistan, where for years he worked for his father's business in a facility that had six or seven power presses similar to the Heim press. Plaintiff also purchased his own power press while living and working in Pakistan. He used his press from the 1990s until he left Pakistan. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that his father taught him that he should turn off the press before working on it with his hands. Plaintiff also testified that in Pakistan, he used a guard on the machine to prevent his fingers or hands from getting caught in the point of operation. The presses Plaintiff worked on in Pakistan did not have a guard installed, so Plaintiff created his own precautionary guarding.

Plaintiff came to the United States in 2002 and began working for Royal Apex as a die setter in 2005. In this position, Plaintiff worked on the Heim press involved in this civil action. As part of his training for this position, Plaintiff was taught the importance of point-of-operation guarding.

After Omnimax purchased Royal Apex, Plaintiff continued in his position as a die setter using the Heim press. During his employment, Plaintiff attended regular safety meetings, some of which were on the topic of machine guarding.

On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff was in the process of setting the die on the Heim press. Prior to the accident, Plaintiff inserted a die into the press and was running the machine to create “test pieces” to confirm that he had placed the die correctly. While testing the die, Plaintiff had the point-of-operation guard in the down, or disabled, position. He testified that he did not keep the guard up while testing the die because doing so would be inconvenient and time-consuming. When he finished running the test pieces, Plaintiff attempted to remove his foot from the Comepi foot pedal so that he could move to the other side of the machine. However, he inadvertently activated the foot pedal and lost his balance. As he was falling toward the press, he placed his hand into the exposed point of operation as the activated foot pedal caused the machine to cycle. Plaintiff's hand was crushed, causing serious injury.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56 governs summary judgment motion practice. This Rule provides that summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or non-existence might affect the outcome of the litigation, and a dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. When evaluating a motion under Rule 56, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Galena, 638 F.3d at 196.

Pursuant to Rule 56, the movant bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that the movant “believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant can meet this burden by showing that the nonmoving party has “fail[ed] to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case.” Id. at 322. After the movant has met its initial burden, summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmoving party fails to rebut the movant's claim by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials” that show a genuine issue of material fact or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B); see also Davis v. City of Phila., 2015 WL 4404871, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2015) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). The nonmoving party must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmoving party may not rely on “bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions,” Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982), or rest on the allegations in the pleadings, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Rather, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings” and, either by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file, “designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Id.

DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts various claims against Heim to wit: strict liability design defect and negligent design claims based on Heim's failure to include a point-of-operation guard on the press; strict liability and negligent failure to adequately warn users of the dangers associated with operating the press without point-of-operation guarding; and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Heim moves for summary judgment on all claims. The arguments with respect to each claim will be addressed in turn.

Strict Liability - Design Defect

With respect to Plaintiff's strict liability claim premised on defective design of the press, Heim argues that: (1) Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that the press was defectively designed; (2) the report of Plaintiff's proffered expert, Brian O'Donel, P.E does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); (3) Heim cannot be held liable because the press was substantially changed when Omnimax replaced the Linemaster foot pedal with the Comepi foot pedal; (4) and Pl...