Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Experts fail to make claim for safer forklift design in case of lost leg

Federal Court
Courtgavel

Courtesy of Shutterstock

NEW ORLEANS (Legal Newsline) - A federal appeals court has ruled against a man who lost his leg in a forklift accident, finding he failed to prove there was an alternative, safer design.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's April 14 decision came in one of many lawsuits that say forklifts in which operators stand but lack a closing door on the left are unsafe. These cases are filed on behalf of operators whose left legs were injured allegedly as a result of protection on their left sides.

In Dawson Vallee's case in New Orleans federal court, Crown Equipment challenged his expert by asking if he'd ever designed a component part for a product that went to market. He responded, "I don't believe so."

Trial judge Sarah Vance tossed the design defect claim, finding an addition to the expert's report for alternative designs with doors was filed too late.

The Fifth Circuit ruled the three alternative forklift designs did not meet the state's Products Liability Act requirements.

One plaintiff expert, Dr. John Mayer, has been accused by defendants of offering litigation-driven reports used only to meet the needs of plaintiff lawyers. In Vallee's case, he testified a safety door would have virtually eliminated the risk of injury.

He submitted six photographs of forklifts with doors made by Crown or its competitors, showing a variety of different door designs and features.

"But he did not include specifications regarding the actual designs (e.g., door dimensions, composition, attachment methods, etc.)," the Fifth Circuit wrote, noting another expert submitted a report suggesting spring-loaded doors.

"The LPLA requires more detail. Neither expert included 'technical drawings [or] calculations' to accompany their suggested alternative addition-of-a-door designs. And neither discussed how their safety door alternatives would actually apply to the specific forklift in question here - the RM6000."

The court also rejected the idea of a foot pedal on the right side, rather than the left, to help avoid injuries on the open side of the forklift's cab.

"Once again, neither expert included any specific details to support their alternative foot-pedal design concepts," it wrote.

Lastly, they suggested a sensor on the backrest that would stop the forklift when an operator is no longer in the normal position. However, Vallee's back remained against the backrest during the incident, nullifying that argument.

More News