Email or Phone Password Forgot account? He also opined that the machine’s warning to stay at least ten feet away was confusing and meaningless, and therefore inadequate, because it is necessary for a worker to be near the machine at certain points in the post driving process. The next step in the engineering analysis was to find a solution to that problem, so he looked at patents involving different post drivers which contained redundant safety devices, and after consultation with an engineering team, he opined that these would be a potential solution to the problem he identified. My opinions were formed after applying the methodologies and criteria previously described. The first is that “the hazard posed by the pressure driver forcibly ejecting steel posts was known or should have been known to GRT Utilicorp, Inc. When a post is driven, a 1, lb.
|Date Added:||11 March 2007|
|File Size:||31.27 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education pist testify in the form of an opinion or grh if: On the day of Francis’s accident, the crew was using utilicodp post driver that was designed and manufactured by defendant DP Manufacturing, Inc.
We can save you money and you will like our service! A product is unreasonably dangerous in design if, at the time the product left its manufacturer’s control: Cunitz stated in his initial report: Apparently recognizing the lack of objective support for his findings, Long emphasized his own “education and experience,” urging that “[c]ontrary to some thinking, standards related to safety do not always have to be adopted by some official agency in order to exist.
Email or Phone Password Forgot account? Cunitz admittedly is not qualified to render an opinion regarding a design defect as it is outside of his specialty.
Please subscribe to download the judgment. You have reach your max limit. Cunitz holds a Ph.
GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | Manufacturers
The plaintiffs have evidence to suggest that the adaptor cap fabricated by GRT was on the machine at the time of the utklicorp. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this Citation.
His experience includes the mechanical design of components for heavy machinery and systems that manufacture heavy machines. My opinions were formed after applying the methodologies and criteria previously described. The hazard that the post could eject from the machine resulting in catastrophic harm was identified as foreseeable based on his review of the evidence in utilicorrp case, the reports of a similar incident in another case, and psot a risk assessment procedure from an engineering textbook.
Therefore, a factual question for resolution by the jury is whether these warnings were “adequate,” and the plaintiff offers Dr.
An “adaptor cap” or “anvil adaptor” fits onto the top of the I-beam. United States District Court, M. A hydraulic arm extends out past the end of the truck and up utlicorp the air. However, the report failed to explain poat any of these authorities support Long’s conclusions relating to the “narrow” pavement, “skewed” angle, uti,icorp surface, and “steep” incline of the Hartley Lane crossing.
Key Phrases are not available yet. Further, my opinions are based on my analysis, evaluation and review of all the evidence presented to me in this case. The fourth and sixth opinions deal with the warnings in this case and the superior positions of knowledge held by manufacturers over end users regarding the hazard of a product which would necessitate warnings.
We strive to assure doing business with us is hassle-free and sets the standard for quality and performance.
GRT Utilicorp, Inc.
Come out and see us! Illinois Central Railroad Co. Contact Us We want to hear from you! While it is not clear exactly what caused the I-beam to eject, it is clear that the adaptor cap did not hold it in the machine, and it is undisputed that uttilicorp was no redundant safety device, as described by Dr.
As a result, Dr. D in Experimental and Human Factors Psychology. Cunitz’s anticipated testimony may not be required to assist the jury in determining whether a warning should or should not have been provided with regard to the danger of post ejection or the need for using OEM replacement parts on the post driver.
A product is unreasonably dangerous for inadequate warning if, at the time the product left its manufacturer’s control, the product possessed a characteristic that might cause damage and the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care to provide an adequate warning about that characteristic and its danger to the product’s users and handlers.
The remainder of the evidence was submitted with the briefs of the parties. Stop by and say hello and see what we can offer you for your post driving and drilling needs! Your request grf be routed to the appropriate person and someone will be in contact with you very quickly.