Warn XD9000i Warning Click Here
Dumbass People... Glad SuperWinch is still pulling strong...
Dumbass People... Glad SuperWinch is still pulling strong...
ALBANY, N.Y. - A federal judge on Aug. 21 dismissed one defendant but held that issues of fact existed as to another defendant's liability for an accident in which a ramp from a trailer fell onto a man, rendering him a paraplegic (Gilbert W. Beneway v. Superwinch Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-0337, N.D. N.Y.; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16126 Shepardize).
(Opinion available. Document #49-020912-102Z.)
Winch Failure
In 1999, Gilbert W. Beneway was opening the rear door on a trailer so he could lower the ramp, using a Superwinch Husky 10 winch, manufactured and sold by Superwinch Inc. When he opened the doors, the ramp fell, severely injuring him and leaving him a paraplegic. The accident was caused by slack that developed in the wire rope and allowed the hook to work free from the D-ring. The ramp remained upright, held in place by the trailer's rear doors until Beneway opened the door.
Beneway sued entities including Superwinch and Superwinch LTD (collectively called Superwinch) and Kulkoni Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Beneway amended his complaint in July 2000, October 2000 and December 2001, asserting causes of action for negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Superwinch filed a third-party complaint against Beneway's employer, Associated Delivery Service Inc.
Superwinch and Kulkoni moved for summary judgment.
Kulkoni Dismissed
Beneway asserted a cause of action for failure to warn against Kulkoni. Beneway contended that the company, which manufactured the hook, had a duty to properly warn the ultimate user of its hook of the dangers of using the hook in conjunction with overhead lifting.
Kulkoni argued that it had no such duty because as a component manufacturer, it is not liable for failure to warn of inherent dangers in the completed product.
Absent proof that the component designs were defective, that the parts were wrongfully manufactured or that the component parts manufacturer was aware of some inherent danger in the design of the ultimate product, "no public policy can be served by imposing liability," Judge David N. Hurd said.
The hook was manufactured in accordance with Superwinch's specifications and nothing inherently dangerous exists about a slip hook. Also, Kulkoni did not assist in designing the Husky 10 and was not aware of how Superwinch planned to market the finished winches, Judge Hurd said.
Additionally, it was not foreseeable to Kulkoni that its hook would be used for overhead lifting because the blueprint provided by Superwinch said the winch would not be used for overhead lifting, Judge Hurd said in granting Kulkoni's motion to dismiss.
Superwinch Claims Remain
Beneway asserted strict product liability, negligence and breach of express and implied warranty claims against Superwinch.
Beneway asserted that the Husky 10 was defective because the hook lacked a safety latch and failure to warn. Superwinch argued that the Husky 10 was properly designed and safe for intended and foreseeable uses and that there was no duty to warn because the danger was open and obvious.
Superwinch said the Husky 10 was sold with a hook that lacked a safety latch but said safety-latched hooks were available as an option. Manufacturers cannot be held liable when purchasers are injured using their product without optional safety equipment in certain circumstances, but in this case, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding all of those elements, Judge Hurd said.
Questions exists as to whether it was foreseeable that the Husky 10 would be used for raising and lowering objects, as to whether the hook met warning standards and as to whether Superwinch adequately informed consumers that installation of the Husky 10 required a safety-latched hook, Judge Hurd said in denying the motion for summary judgment on the strict product liability claim.
Issues Of Fact Exist
Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the Husky 10 was being used in a foreseeable manner, the motion for summary judgment for the breach of warranty claim also must be denied, Judge Hurd said.
Summary judgment for the negligence/failure to warn claims also are not warranted, Judge Hurd said.
Given that some of Superwinch's other winches have safety-latched hooks and that a competing manufacturer offers a safety-latched hook on a winch similar to the Husky 10, a reasonable jury could conclude that the safety-latched hook should be standard equipment, Judge Hurd said
Also, a question exists as to whether lifting objects overhead was a reasonably foreseeable use of the winch and whether a limitation that the winch should not be used for overhead lifting was communicated to Beneway's employer, Judge Hurd said.
John Scarzafava of the Law Firm of Scarzafava & Basdekis in Oneonta, N.Y., represents Beneway. Peter J. Camp of Friedman, Hirschen, Miller & Campito in Schenectady, N.Y., represents Superwinch. Steven Ward Williams of Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet in Syracuse, N.Y., represents Kulkoni.
