Boda v. Viant Crane Service, LLC

Background

Shane Boda was seriously injured on June 5, 2015, at a construction site when a cable on a Grove crane snapped and the crane’s headache ball and spreader bar fell on him. Viant Crane Service, LLC, had rented the crane to Brown Tank, LLC, Boda’s employer. Viant Crane, LLC, and Viant Crane Service, LLC, moved for summary judgment on Boda’s strict-liability and negligence claims; Brown Tank joined the motion.

The crane had an anti-two-block device, or ATBD, designed to warn the operator and shut down most crane functions if the headache ball rose too close to the boom tip. Viant records showed that the ATBD had been replaced in February 2015 and was found functional during a May 14, 2015 service inspection. Brown Tank’s operator also inspected and tested it when the crane arrived and recorded it as functioning during the days before May 22.

On May 22, the ATBD’s cable and weight broke or fell off. Brown Tank employees bypassed the crane’s lockout feature so the crane could continue operating without the ATBD. The operator continued using the crane for about two weeks. On June 5, he took his eyes off the crane tip to speak to workers, and the headache ball rose into the boom tip, causing the cable to snap and the equipment to fall on Boda. The operator and his supervisor knew the crane should not be operated without a functioning ATBD, and the crane’s labels and manual warned against doing so and against passing loads over workers.

Strict Liability

Under Minnesota law, a strict product-liability claim requires proof that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and that the defect proximately caused the injury. Boda argued that the ATBD had been defectively installed or attached when Viant replaced it and that it fell off during normal crane use.

The court recognized that Boda’s expert, Timothy Galarnyk, viewed operation on rough terrain with a swinging headache ball as normal and expected use and believed the ATBD’s failure indicated a defective installation or attachment. The court also found disputed evidence about exactly how the crane was operated on May 22.

But the court held that Boda had not presented enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that the ATBD was defective when the crane left Viant’s control. The ATBD was found functional shortly before delivery, and the evidence did not show how the crane was operated, maintained, or handled by Brown Tank employees or others during the period before the ATBD failed. Because Boda relied on circumstantial evidence rather than identifying a specific defect, he had to reasonably eliminate improper handling or misuse after delivery. The court held that he had not done so and granted Viant summary judgment on this basis.

The court separately considered proximate cause. It concluded that, if a jury could find a defect existed at delivery, the defect could be considered a cause of the accident because the crane would not have operated if the ATBD had remained functional. The court also held that whether Brown Tank employees’ decision to bypass the lockout was a superseding cause involved factual questions, including whether their conduct was brought about by the alleged defect and whether it was foreseeable. Those questions would have prevented summary judgment on causation alone, but they did not alter the court’s conclusion that Boda lacked sufficient evidence of a defect at delivery.

Failure to Warn

Boda alleged that Viant failed to warn Brown Tank that the crane had a defective or missing ATBD and failed to warn about the dangers of operating the crane without a functioning ATBD. The court held that the first theory failed because Boda had not shown that the ATBD was defective when Viant delivered the crane.

The court rejected Viant’s argument that it had no duty to warn because the crane operators were sophisticated users. Although the evidence showed that the operator and supervisor knew the dangers of operating the crane without a functioning ATBD, the record did not establish as a matter of law that crane operators generally could be expected to know those risks well enough to eliminate a supplier’s duty to warn.

The court nevertheless granted summary judgment on the warning claim because the warnings provided with the crane were adequate on the record presented. Labels in the cab and the operator’s manual warned that the crane should have a functional ATBD and control lockout system, that the system should be tested daily, and that loads or the boom should not pass over workers. Boda identified no specific defect in those warnings, proposed no different warning that would have made the crane safer, and offered no evidence that a different warning would have changed the conduct of the operator or supervisor, who already knew the relevant dangers and deliberately continued using the crane.

Negligence

Boda’s negligence theories included providing unsafe equipment, failing to inspect the crane before delivery, failing to warn about the ATBD, and providing a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. The court held that these theories failed for the same reasons as the strict-liability theories: Boda had not shown a defect existing when the crane left Viant’s control or established a viable failure-to-warn theory.

Boda’s expert also argued that an Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation required Viant to conduct and document an inspection when the crane was delivered to the construction site. The court rejected that theory. It explained that the cited law and regulation applied to employers and referred to inspections by qualified or competent persons after assembly and before shifts; they did not impose the claimed delivery-inspection obligation on Viant.

Disposition

The court granted Viant Crane Service, LLC, and Viant Crane, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.