This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An employee of a construction company was fatally injured while attempting to clear a rock jam in a portable rock crushing plant. The machine, designed by the manufacturer, had been modified after delivery, including the removal of a metal shield that exposed a moving flywheel. The employee's leg was caught in the flywheel, leading to a fatal injury (paras 1, 10).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, the manufacturer and the employer, dismissing the claims of strict liability and employer liability under Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc. (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the manufacturer was strictly liable because the modifications to the machine were foreseeable. They also contended that the employer was liable under Delgado for creating unsafe working conditions and removing the protective shield (paras 2, 29-31).
- Defendants-Appellees (Manufacturer): Asserted that the modifications to the machine, particularly the removal of the protective shield, were unforeseeable and that the machine was safe as originally designed (paras 18-20).
- Defendants-Appellees (Employer): Claimed that the employee's actions were contrary to training and safety protocols, and that the employer's conduct did not meet the Delgado standard for intentional harm (paras 31-33).
Legal Issues
- Was the manufacturer strictly liable for injuries caused by modifications to the product that were allegedly foreseeable?
- Did the employer's conduct meet the Delgado standard for intentional harm, thereby precluding reliance on workers' compensation exclusivity?
- Could the employer be held liable under the dual persona doctrine for its role in modifying the machine?
Disposition
- Strict Liability: The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the modifications (para 28).
- Employer Liability: The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the employer, holding that the Delgado standard was not met and rejecting the dual persona argument (paras 33, 35).
Reasons
Per Fry CJ (Bustamante J. concurring):
Strict Liability: The Court adopted the rule that a manufacturer may still be strictly liable for injuries caused by substantial modifications to a product if those modifications were reasonably foreseeable. The evidence suggested that the modifications, including the addition of a step and removal of the shield, could have been foreseeable to the manufacturer. The foreseeability of these changes and their role in the accident were deemed factual questions for the jury (paras 12-28).
Employer Liability under Delgado: The Court found no evidence that the employer intentionally placed the employee in harm's way or expected the injury to occur. The employee was trained to turn off the machine before clearing jams, and his decision to act otherwise was not attributable to the employer's intentional conduct (paras 29-33).
Dual Persona Doctrine: The Court rejected the argument that the employer assumed a separate persona as an equipment manufacturer by modifying the machine. It held that such modifications did not strip the employer of workers' compensation immunity (para 35).
Per Kennedy J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part):
Strict Liability: Kennedy J. dissented on the strict liability issue, arguing that the modifications, particularly the removal of the protective shield, were unforeseeable as a matter of law. He emphasized that the manufacturer could not reasonably anticipate such changes or the employee's unsafe use of the machine (paras 38-57).
Employer Liability: Kennedy J. concurred with the majority in affirming the summary judgment for the employer, agreeing that the Delgado standard was not met (para 55).