Workplace Injuries

A state appellate court recently addressed the applicability of the consumer expectations test in a California product liability claim against a forklift manufacturer. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries when a forklift he was operating tipped over. The forklift at issue is known as a “telehandler,” which is designed to work on rough terrain and travel off paved surfaces. These devices have a telescopic boom that can extend to carry loads to high elevations.

The telehandler had a steel cage around the operator that worked as a rollover protective system. The machine also had a two-point seat belt and a leveling system that allowed the operator to flatten a slope about 10 degrees. However, the safety manual warned that the telehandler should not be used on any slope over 10 degrees. Additionally, the manual stated that operators should not travel with the boom elevated because doing so could cause a rollover. The telehandler was sold with a door; however, in this case, the door was removed before the incident.

On the day of the incident, the plaintiff was asked to move several industrial ovens at a worksite. After performing an inspection of the machine, he got into the telehandler and traveled to the area with the ovens. He did this without wearing a seat belt and with the boom elevated. When he reached the area, and began to back up, the telehandler fell on its side, and the plaintiff fell out of the forklift.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a California workplace injury lawsuit that was brought by the family of a man who died after falling while washing windows on the defendant’s building. The case required the court to discuss the concept of third-party liability as it pertains to workplace injury lawsuits. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant corporation was not liable to the deceased’s estate because the corporation took no “affirmative conduct” that caused the man’s fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving family members of a man who fell to his death while washing windows at the defendant’s three-story building. At the time, the victim was employed by a company that had contracted with the defendant corporation. The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant corporation, claiming that it was negligent for the defendant not to install roof anchors that the deceased could have used to anchor his descent apparatus. The roof anchors were required by statute.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the prevailing case law, it could not be held liable because it had contracted with the window-washing company and retained no control over how the work would be completed. Essentially, the defendant argued that it delegated the duty of providing a safe workplace to the window-washing company, and since the defendant did not instruct the company on how the work was to be completed, the defendant did not otherwise assume a duty of care.

Articles Posted in Workplace Injuries

Court Addresses Ordinary Consumer Expectations Test in California Product Liability Claim

California Appellate Court Finds Defendant Was Not Liable in Third-Party Workplace Injury Case