American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Terex Crane

Citations: 861 So. 2d 228; 2003 WL 22519466Docket: 2003 CA 0279

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 6, 2003; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Koehring Cranes, Inc. appeals a jury decision that allocated 38% of the fault for a crane accident to them, while Central Erectors, Inc. was assigned 62% fault. The incident occurred on May 16, 1996, when a crane manufactured by Koehring malfunctioned during the erection of a bus station, resulting in Louis Chapman Jr. suffering severe injuries after he fell from a height of twenty feet to escape the collapsing crane boom. American Central Insurance Company, the insurer for Central Erectors, and Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation (LWCC) filed lawsuits against Koehring for damages and reimbursement of medical expenses. The cases were consolidated, and the jury awarded Chapman significant damages, including over $1 million for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Koehring's appeal challenges the allocation of fault and the jury's findings regarding damages, while Chapman seeks to increase the awarded amounts for future lost wages and pain and suffering. The court affirmed the jury's findings.

Louisiana law mandates that manufacturers warn users of any inherent dangers associated with the normal use of their products that may not be known to an ordinary user. The manufacturer’s duty to warn is ongoing. In this case, it was uncontested that the boom hoist brake failed due to a fractured anchor bolt. Expert testimonies revealed conflicting analyses regarding the cause of the anchor bolt's fatigue failure. Hargreaves from Terex Corporation claimed the failure was due to a lack of lubrication, supported by Dr. Whitehouse who noted corrosion indicating absence of a protective lubricant. Conversely, Hames, responsible for crane maintenance, testified that he had applied the lubricant and disputed claims of corrosion. McPhate attributed the failure to misalignment, suggesting it was a design defect, while Hames noted that misalignment issues were not covered by existing standards, meaning failure could occur even with compliance to ANSI and OSHA. Roberts asserted that adherence to safety plans did not directly cause the accident. McPhate indicated that a simple half-inch spherical washer could have prevented the failure. Central Erectors was found to have not followed OSHA and ANSI standards or the maintenance guidelines in Koehring's Operator's Manual. Killingsworth countered Koehring's position by stating that the manual did not specify the need for lubricant application, and Hames corroborated that it lacked instructions for oiling the pin area. Additionally, Peabody testified about a prior anchor bolt failure on a similar crane and mentioned informing Hargreaves about it shortly after the incident.

A court of appeal does not overturn a jury's factual findings unless there is manifest error. The review focuses not on the correctness of the jury's decision but on whether it was reasonable based on the entire record. The jury found that Peabody's testimony evidenced Koehring's prior knowledge of anchor bolt failure and a breach of duty to warn Lorain crane owners. The Operator's Manual lacked specific maintenance instructions for the anchor bolt, which Peabody acknowledged. Despite a claim of a lubricating oil hole, there were no explicit maintenance guidelines for the eye bolt. The jury reasonably concluded that Koehring had a duty to inform users about potential anchor bolt fatigue failure, as its knowledge of prior failures imposed such a responsibility. The jury's finding of Koehring’s negligence in not providing adequate warnings or maintenance directives was upheld, and no manifest error was found in assigning fault to Koehring.

Regarding damages, Chapman contested the jury's awards for future lost wages and various pain and suffering claims. Lost future income awards lack precise calculation and rely on the jury's discretion, which should only be disturbed in cases of abuse. Future income loss is assessed based on earning capacity changes due to injury rather than a direct comparison of past and current earnings.

The jury awarded Chapman $100,000 for future lost wages, which was significantly lower than the discounted future wage estimates provided by economist Dr. G. Randolph Rice, which ranged from $296,636 to $527,352. Koehring challenged Dr. Rice’s calculations, arguing they failed to account for Chapman's pre-existing serious injuries and potential retraining opportunities. The jury likely relied on testimony from Dr. Thomas Whitecloud, an orthopedic surgeon, who treated Chapman and determined he should not return to work as an ironworker due to restrictions on lifting, bending, and climbing. Despite attributing a fifteen percent increase in back deformity, Dr. Whitecloud maintained that Chapman's work restrictions remained unchanged after a 1996 incident. Vocational rehabilitator Michael Frenzel indicated that alternative sedentary jobs were available for Chapman, even with his medical history, though he acknowledged a lack of awareness regarding the possibility of Chapman's foot loss. Given the conflicting evidence, the jury's decision on future lost wages was deemed appropriate.

In terms of general damages, which encompass non-monetary losses such as pain and suffering, the jury awarded Chapman $340,000. His injuries were extensive, involving multiple fractures and significant medical treatment, including at least seven surgeries on his foot and toes, procedures for infections, and operations on his thoracic spine and elbow. Medical testimony highlighted the severity of his injuries, with Dr. W. Joseph Laughlin noting the extensive damage to Chapman's foot and the recurrent risk of amputation. The appellate standard for reviewing general damage awards emphasizes that adjustments should only be made if the award exceeds what a reasonable jury could determine based on the specific circumstances of the case.

The jury awarded $140,000.00 for Chapman's pain and suffering, allocating $100,000.00 for past and future physical pain and suffering and $40,000.00 for past and future mental pain and suffering. Despite the extensive medical treatment and multiple surgeries Chapman underwent, the award is not deemed excessive when compared to similar cases in the first circuit. The court found no basis to alter the jury's awards of $100,000.00 each for permanent physical impairment and disability of body and loss of enjoyment of life. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, with appeal costs shared by Koehring Cranes, Inc. The statutory workers' compensation lien of LWCC was acknowledged, and various motions from both parties were denied, including motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Testimony indicated that the crane's clutch could have prevented the accident had it been properly maintained, though it could only slow the boom's fall. Chapman's evidence pointed to prior failures of anchor bolts, suggesting Koehring had a duty to warn. Earnings were evaluated with inflation adjustments, and while concerns about Chapman's chronic pain medication affecting employment opportunities were raised, the jury had discretion in weighing the testimony provided.