HARRISBURG — The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently denied an appeal seeking injury damages by a former employee at a modular home manufacturing plant in Renniger v. A&R Machine Shop and Cass Hudson Company.
Dennis Renniger was employed by Commodore Homes in 2007 when he was injured at work. Renniger, a roofer for the modular home manufacturer, sustained serious injuries when a modular home, which moved along a track on the floor, ran over his foot.
According to the trial court, at any given time there were 10 to 12 homes in different stages of the building process on the Commodore Homes plant floor. The homes were moved along the assembly line with large casters. While originally the casters were placed several feet inside the home’s outer frame, Commodore eventually repositioned the casters to the outer edge of the homes.
The court records show that the casters were repositioned to prevent bowing of floor joists. Renniger claimed the new positioning of the casters ultimately resulted in his foot being run over by one of the homes in the process of manufacture. Renniger was wearing tennis shoes at the time and sustained serious injuries.
Renniger asserted that the casters themselves were defective and filed suit against A&R Machine Shop and Cass Hudson Company, the companies that designed, built and supplied the casters to Commodore Homes. According to expert testimony provided by the Renniger legal team’s expert, the injury could have been prevented if the casters had toe-guards installed. But ultimately, the jury found that neither A&R Machine Shop nor Cass Hudson Company had supplied defective products.
Following the return of the jury’s verdict, Renniger filed several post-trial motions. Those motions were denied and the latest appeal was filed. In considering the appeal, the Superior Court reviewed the facts of the case, including expert testimony, and found that the record contained a “significant body of evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.”
Although Renniger made a lengthy appeal and alleged multiple errors on the part of the trial court, the Superior Court ultimately found that none of the alleged errors required it to act. In the end, the court affirmed the ruling of the lower court.