Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by the widows of two iron workers who died in a crane accident at the Sooner Electric Generating Plant. The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against FMC Corporation, alleging that a crane manufactured by FMC was defective and caused the deaths. The plaintiffs initially included Bado Equipment, the crane's seller, in their claims but dismissed them before trial. The jury ruled in favor of FMC, finding no defect in the crane. On appeal, the key issues revolved around the appropriateness of the jury instructions on assumption of risk and manufacturer's product liability. The appellate court found that the district court erred in its assumption of risk instruction, as there was no evidence the decedents were aware of or accepted any risks associated with the crane's operation. The court reversed the judgment in favor of FMC and remanded the case for a new trial, suggesting that the district court reassess its instructions on manufacturer's product liability, particularly regarding the duty to warn about known defects.
Legal Issues Addressed
Assumption of Risk Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the district court erred in providing an assumption of risk instruction because there was no evidence that the decedents were aware of or accepted any risks associated with the crane's operation.
Reasoning: In applying these principles, the court concluded that the district court erred in providing an assumption of risk instruction. Despite FMC's strong defense asserting the crane's lack of defects, there was no evidence indicating that the decedents were aware of any potential risks or had knowingly assumed such risks.
Jury Instructions on Manufacturer's Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the district court's instruction on manufacturer's product liability was not improper but suggested reassessment upon remand, emphasizing the manufacturer's duty to warn about known defects.
Reasoning: The appellants raised concerns about the district court's jury instruction on manufacturer's product liability, specifically regarding the manufacturer's knowledge of industry standards. While the instruction was not improper, the district court is encouraged to reassess it upon remand.
Manufacturer's Product Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs alleged that the crane manufactured by FMC was defective and unreasonably dangerous, which led to the wrongful deaths of their husbands, but the jury initially ruled in favor of FMC.
Reasoning: The appellants' lawsuit against FMC was solely based on the claim of a defective product, with FMC arguing that the crane was not defective at the time of manufacture or the accident.