Court Decision: Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windows, 2011 ME 61
.jpg)
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court today upheld a jury verdict entered against the plaintiff in a product liability case arising out of an allegedly defective overhead door. Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windows, 2011 ME 61 (Saufley, C.J.)
Plaintiff was injured at work when an overhead door closed while he was walking through and struck him on the head. Plaintiff knew that the door had no safety mechanism to prevent it from stopping if it encountered an obstruction. Basically, once one pushed the "down" button, the door would slam down with no emergency shut-off switch.
Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant ADW which had installed the door and against the manufacturer of the door on one product liability count alleging defective condition because the door did not contain a safety mechanism. Neither Defendant had manufactured the allegedly defective closing mechanism. The Superior Court entered an order on the Defendants' summary judgment motions, allowing Plaintiff to go forward on a failure to warn theory although this was not included in his pleadings. Plaintiff settled with the manufacturer and proceeded to trial against ADW.
After a two-day trial, the Superior Court instructed the jury as a matter of law and evidence that ADW had not provided any warnings to Plaintiff. However, the trial judge refused to instruct the jury that a seller has a duty to warn about obvious dangers if it is foreseeable that user will encounter the hazard out of necessity or inadvertence. The jury found that ADW had no duty to warn Plaintiff of the danger.
On appeal, the Law Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that he should not have been limited to a claim for failure to warn. Chief Justice Saufley found that since Plaintiff had not included other theories in his complaint, he could not present them to the jury. The high Court stated: "Maine's notice pleading standard may be forgiving, ...; it does not, however, permit a party to shift his cause of action at any point in the proceedings." Accordingly, the Law Court found the trial court properly denied Plaintiff's efforts to circumvent the summary judgment order.
Burns v. ADW Judgment:
www.mainepersonalinjurylaw.com/uploads/file/burns v arch doors PL.pdf
