Brief Description of Case:
This is an action in which plaintiff sought recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained when operating a Meat Grinder. After said purpose, the safety shield was removed from the Meat Grinder. Plaintiff’s sleeve of his uniform got caught in the machine, which caused his hand and arm to be pulled into the machine and crushed by the meat grinder’s auger. Plaintiff asserted several claims against Defendant’s including: (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness; (2) strict products liability; and (3) negligence.
Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:
The court granted Prokraft’s motion for summary judgment, as to: (1) Plaintiff’s implied warranty claim; (2) plaintiff’s defective design theory and failure to warn theories of liability; and (3) negligence. The Court found that Defendants and Third-Party Defendant had established that the product was not defectively designed at the time it was manufactured and sold to Karzinka, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Meat Grinder, with the safety guard, was not reasonably safe.
In addition, the Court found that the Meat Grinder was marketed in a condition safe for the purposes for which it was intended, that the removal of the safety guard was a substantial modification, and that Defendants did not fail to warn of the dangers of using the Meat Grinder without a safety device.
Lastly, Defendants and Third-Party Defendant asserted that summary judgment is warranted on Plaintiff’s claim of breach of an implied warranty because the evidence reveals that the Meat Grinder was not defectively designed.