Verdict uphelp. PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK

An appeals court has upheld a verdict against Crown Equipment Corp in the forklift-related death of operator Thomas Brown on 1 August 2003 at Prime Tanning Co Inc in Berwick, Maine (Forkliftaction.com News #391).

The law department at New Bremen, Ohio-based Crown expresses disappointment at the decision of the first circuit US Court of Appeals in Boston and concern for what the decision says to the manufacturing community. Crown is considering additional appellate efforts.

While moving chemicals in a storage area, Brown was asphyxiated. His chest was compressed between a shelving unit and the dashboard of a 1989 Crown stand-up forklift. Prime Tanning was the third owner of the forklift. The trial court in Portland, Maine found the Crown design safe but cited Crown's post-sale failure to warn in making an award.

Crown says the appellate opinion "does not reflect the level of thoughtful consideration of all factors and reasoning Crown hoped for from such an important judicial panel. It is absolutely essential that juries are instructed correctly on the law in order for their verdicts to be fair to all parties. The jury was given the proper legal instruction on the question of whether Crown's product was defective, and they found for Crown on that claim. Specifically, the jury found there was no defect in Crown's product. Conversely, as every appellate judge involved in reviewing this case has agreed, the jury was given the wrong legal instruction to use in deciding the claim that Crown failed to give a proper post-sale warning. The jury found against Crown on that claim. Even though this critical mistake is acknowledged by the judges, they deny Crown a new, fair trial on the post-sale warning claim. This is contrary to law and a denial of Crown's due process rights."

Crown says the decision sends "a disturbing message" to industry.

"Crown is a responsible manufacturer," the company says. "The Crown design advanced the safety for this type of product and became a market leader. As the jury said, the product is safe and not defective. However, Crown, like many other manufacturers, over the life of the product developed a feature that improved safety even more. Even though a manufacturer in this situation has no legal duty to make this feature available to previous buyers, Crown voluntarily did make a field retrofit kit available. It mailed thousands of notices to the original purchasers. Mr. Brown's employer did not receive a letter because they did not purchase the truck from Crown; they bought it third-hand on the used market. Nonetheless, after the accident, Mr. Brown's employer acknowledged they had a Crown operator manual in their possession that warned of the danger."

Crown sees irony in the case.

"Crown did the right thing - making safety enhancements available to previous buyers," the company says. "If it had done nothing, Crown would not have lost this trial. Even so, and even in the environment of these challenging economic times, Crown will not sacrifice on safety. But we do expect that if there is litigation, both parties will receive a fair trial. Because the jury was given an improper instruction on the warning issue, Crown did not get a fair trial."

The trial court was instructed to recalculate the damages award, which could exceed USD1.85 million including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and legal costs. "The amount of the change is not material," says John G Maxa, Crown vice president and general counsel.