|
PEREZ v. V.A.S. SpA.
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
(Second Appellate District, Division 4)
In a published opinion issued September 17, 2010, the California Appellate Court affirmed the defense judgment in favor of Defendant V.A.S. S.p.A., represented by Frank T. Sabaitis and Brad A. Byszewski of Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP at trial and on appeal. In the Products Liability/Negligence action, the Appellate Court found that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s ruling that Plaintiff’s use of a sophisticated piece of industrial machinery was unforeseeable, thereby constituting the sole cause of Plaintiff’s injury and absolving VAS of liability.
The California Appellate Court’s written opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. SpA represents the first comprehensive, published opinion of California products liability law since the Appellate Court’s 1996 decision in Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1.
SUMMARY OF APPELLATE COURT’S RULING (“Daily Appellate Report” summary from the Daily Journal)
Juan Perez was injured by a paper rewinding machine manufactured by VAS S.p.A. Perez was injured while he was cutting the finished paper to wrap a piece of plastic around it, a process not specified in the machine’s manual. The process placed Perez in close proximity to a pinch point, contrary to warnings by VAS. In 2007, Perez filed suit against VAS asserting strict products liability and negligence. VAS alleged product misuse as an affirmative defense. An expert witness for VAS testified that VAS did not foresee or reasonably anticipate the finishing process of wrapping the finished paper roll in plastic as a function of the machine. The expert further testified that the process could be performed after the finished roll was ejected, as directed in the manual, and such was not integral in its operation. Judgment in favor of VAS was entered, with the court finding Perez’s use a superseding cause of his injury. On appeal, Perez attacked the court’s allocation of burden of proof and weighing of evidence.
Affirmed on appeal. An error in allocating the burden of proof must be prejudicial in order to constitute reversible error. A superseding cause is one so highly extraordinary as to be unforeseeable. Here, Perez provided a prima facie case for products liability in showing that his injury occurred because his hand was caught in the pinch point, which should have shifted the burden on VAS to prove absence of unforeseeable misuse. However, there was substantial evidence that Perez’s use was the superseding cause, and such error was not prejudicial to his claim. VAS did not foresee that its machine would be used to perform the unnecessary finishing processes employed by Perez and his employer. Thus, the court correctly determined that Perez’s misuse could not be imputed to VAS, and the error in assigning the burden of proof to Perez was not prejudicial as to constitute reversal.
SABAITIS • O’CALLAGHAN LLP
Our firm specializes in litigation of construction, earth movement, products liability, toxic tort/mold, real estate, business, premises liability and personal injury claims. Sabaitis • O’Callaghan LLP is an AV rated law firm that continues to grow to service the needs of our private and insurance industry clients. Our firm handles matters throughout all of California.
If you would like a complete copy of the Appellate Court’s September 17, 2010 written, published opinion in Perez v. V.A.S. S.p.A, please contact us.
Frank T. Sabaitis
Brad A. Byszewski
|
