Specifically, the use of nonconforming forks increased the risk of fork hang-up, and thus the risk of injury. Rogers, both concluded that the absence of the chamfer on the replacement Dyson forks was a significant factor in the accident. C at 64-66).ĭefendant's two experts, Robert N.
Evidently, however, repeated re-indexing of the forks had worn down the shoulders of the pins so that they were slightly rounded and chamfered. In contrast, the 60" Dyson replacement forks were designed with square shoulders and no chamfer, and thus did not conform to Raymond's design specifications. In other words, each pin was ½" narrower at its end, thus increasing the alignment tolerance and reducing fork "hang-up." (Def.'s Supp. for Defendant Raymond, featured chamfered pins designed to facilitate proper pin alignment. The original forks, which were manufactured by Kenhar Corp. and distributed by Andersen & Associates. Plaintiff Lynne Milanowicz also sought recovery for loss of consortium, society, and services.ĭuring discovery, it was learned that the original 48" forks on the lift truck had, at some point prior to the accident, been replaced by 60" forks manufactured by Dyson Corp. On or about July 1, 1999, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging products liability claims of defective design, failure to warn, and inadequate instructions for use. And at the same time my hand slipped behind, found the hold and came down and severed my finger." (Pls.' Opp. However, in Plaintiff's words, "as I was lifting, my hand my right hand slipped behind the fork on grease. Plaintiff then tried lifting and shifting the fork into place with his hands. When that was not successful, Plaintiff stepped closer in towards the carriage to determine how much further the pin needed to move. Plaintiff then tried to manually manipulate the fork into the hole by shaking the end of the fork in the hope that the pin would engage. However, when Plaintiff raised the carriage in order to re-level the forks, one fork did not re-engage in the desired hole. In this case, Plaintiff lowered the lift carriage onto a guardrail so as to rotate the forks up and disengage the pins, thus allowing him then to manually shift the *527 forks into the desired position. In order to laterally adjust each fork to accommodate a wider or narrower load the operator would pivot each fork upward toward the carriage to disengage the pin, shift the fork to a position in front of the desired hole, and then swing the fork down until the pin re-engaged in the new hole. To prevent lateral movement, each fork was secured in place by a pin on the back of the vertical portion of the fork which fit into one of several holes on the front of the carriage. The "L"-shaped forks were mounted on pivots on the front of the lift truck. On August 20, 1997, Plaintiff Michael Milanowicz ("Plaintiff"), an employee at the General Motors Service Parts Distribution Facility in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, injured his hand while laterally adjusting the forks on a lift truck manufactured by Defendant Raymond Corporation ("Defendant" or "Raymond"). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Presently before the court is Defendant The Raymond Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiffs Michael and Lynne Milanowicz's products liability and consortium claims.
Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli & Gray by Richard B. Ginsberg, Mount Laurel, NJ, for Plaintiffs. THE RAYMOND CORPORATION and John Does A-Z, jointly, severally, and in the alternative, Defendants. Michael MILANOWICZ and Lynne Milanowicz, his wife, Plaintiffs,
0 kommentar(er)
