PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed a product liability lawsuit, which resulted from the plaintiff suffering injuries to his middle finger when he placed his hand in the blades of a snow thrower he believed to be turned off.
On Oct. 31, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Chad F. Kenney granted a motion for summary judgment filed by MTD Products and Troy-Bilt, LLC, and against plaintiffs Robert Brewer and Jennifer Brewer.
“Mr. Brewer purchased a Troy-Bilt Storm 2410 snow thrower, a product analogous to a lawn mower, but meant to clear snow. The product has two sets of internal blades. A set of auger blades at the bottom-front of the machine gathers snow and moves it into the impeller housing. Then, a set of impeller blades rotate and ‘throw’ the snow out of a discharge chute. The snow thrower’s engine can be turned on in two ways. According to the product’s manual, both methods require the key to first be placed in the ignition. Once the key is in the ignition, the engine can be activated either by pulling a pull cord, or via an electronic start button if the snow thrower is plugged in,” Kenney said.
“To start or continue running the engine requires a spark from a spark plug or other ignition source with sufficient energy. Once the engine is running, the user must engage a specific lever on the machine to turn on the snow thrower’s blade systems. As designed, there are two ways to turn off the snow thrower. Either the user can slide the throttle control lever into its STOP position, or the user can remove the ignition key. According to the product’s manual, once the user either slides the control lever to STOP or removes the ignition key, the snow thrower should be impossible to turn on and should stop running because the possibility of a spark is removed.”
Kenney added that the snow thrower’s manual “contains several warnings, including warnings to stop the engine and blades before leaving the operating position, and to remove the key while the snow thrower is not in use” – and there are also “several warnings on the machine itself, including warnings to keep hands and feet away from the blades and discharge chute, and warnings to shut off the engine before using the clean-out tool to clear a clog.”
“Mr. Brewer had purchased this product in 2010 and used it approximately 40 to 60 times without major incident. Although the snow thrower would sometimes get clogged, the product contained a clean-out tool meant to be inserted into the blades in order to clear clogs, which Mr. Brewer stated happened on occasion. Mr. Brewer alleged that on Feb. 18, 2021, he was using the machine in his typical manner when it clogged. To clear the clog, Mr. Brewer turned off the blades and powered down the machine by moving the throttle to the STOP position. He then used the clean-out tool to begin clearing out the clog, but it would not fully clear the clog. As a result, he inserted his hand in the discharge chute to continue clearing the clog, when he alleges that the machine spontaneously started and the blades began to rotate, injuring his middle finger. The injury required two surgeries,” Kenney said.
“Plaintiffs brought this action under two separate theories. First, that the product was defectively designed such that it could spontaneously start even while it was turned off via the throttle control, and second, that there were not adequate warnings on the machine itself alerting him to the danger of cleaning a clog without removing the ignition key. Plaintiffs did not respond to the portion of defendants’ motion for summary judgment addressing his product defect claim, and therefore Counts I and III, which asserted that claim, are abandoned. Indeed, plaintiffs state in their brief that ‘this case amounts to a ‘failure to warn’ product liability case,’ appearing to explicitly abandon their defect claims.”
Kenney explained that to support his sole remaining claim under a failure to warn theory, the plaintiffs put forth an expert, Dr. Michael Stichter, who opined that the defendants could easily and inexpensively place a warning on the machine instructing users to remove the ignition key before clearing clogs.
That opinion, Kenney said, is “based on plaintiffs’ underlying theory that the snow thrower can spontaneously start if the throttle control is turned to the ‘STOP’ position, but not if the ignition key is removed” – while the defendants “maintain that it is impossible for the machine to spontaneously start if the throttle control is turned to ‘STOP’ or if the ignition key is removed.”
The defendants moved for summary judgment and the exclusion of Dr. Stichter, a moved which the plaintiffs opposed.
“Plaintiffs, supported by their expert, argue that the existing warnings were inadequate, and that there should have been a warning on the machine itself instructing users not to clear clogs unless the key was removed from the ignition. Plaintiffs acknowledge that there was such a warning in the manual, but insist that the placement of the warning is critical, and that it needs to be on the machine in order to be legally sufficient. In pressing this argument, plaintiffs ignore an even more critical warning that was on the machine: Not to place one’s hands in the discharge chute. Mr. Brewer does not dispute that he knew about this warning and disregarded it. Yet plaintiffs seek an additional warning that would have instructed Mr. Brewer to make sure the machine was fully powered down by removing the ignition key before disregarding the existing warnings and putting his hand in the discharge chute,” Kenney said.
“The primary material fact in this case is whether there was a sufficiently prominent warning not to place one’s hands in the discharge chute. There is no dispute that these warnings were contained in both the manual and on the machine, and that Mr. Brewer was aware of them. For example, Mr. Brewer acknowledges that the following warnings were in the manual: ‘Do not put hands or feet near rotating parts in the auger, slash, impeller housing or chute assembly. Contact with the rotating parts can amputate hands or feet,’ ‘Never put [your] hand in the discharge chute or collector openings. Always use the clean out tool provided to unclog the discharge opening,’ ‘Never use your hand to clean out the discharge chute,’ and ‘Warning, never use your hands to clear a clogged chute assembly.’ On the machine itself, Mr. Brewer concedes that there was a warning stating: ‘Never put hand in chute. Contact with rotating parts can amputate finger and hands,’ as well as an illustration conveying the same message accompanied by the word ‘Danger.”
Kenney provided that Mr. Brewer’s testimony and photographs of the snow thrower made “clear” that the warnings “do not contain any qualification, and instead plainly indicate that one should not place their hands in the discharge chute at any time, [and] Mr. Brewer himself acknowledges that despite his misreading of the relevant warnings, they do not contain any qualification that permit placing hands in the discharge chute if the machine is turned off.”
“Thus, the only material facts are whether the snow thrower contained a warning not to place one’s hand in the discharge chute, and whether Mr. Brewer would have avoided that risk had he been aware of that warning. Even drawing all inferences in Mr. Brewer’s favor, the record evidence establishes that there was such a warning on the machine itself, which Mr. Brewer conceded he was aware of, and that Mr. Brewer nevertheless disregarded that warning by placing his hands in the chute. Plaintiffs’ expert finds that the danger could have been avoided with a cost-effective remedy, namely putting a warning on the machine to remove the key from the ignition before clearing the discharge chute. Dr. Stichter’s underlying theory is that the snow thrower is capable of a spontaneous start if the throttle control switch is turned to STOP, but not if the ignition key is removed,” Kenney said.
“Since defendants contend that it is impossible for the machine to spontaneously start even if the ignition switch is turned off, plaintiffs assert that there remains a genuine dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs are incorrect. The possibility of a spontaneous start, no matter the circumstances, is not material to this case since Mr. Brewer would not have been harmed by a spontaneous start had he obeyed the existing warnings not to place his hands in the discharge chute at any time. Even assuming a manufacturer was aware of the possibility of a spontaneous start, the appropriate warning would be to warn users to never place their hands near the blades, just as defendants did here.”
Kenney concluded by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and dismissing the case – consequently, the defendants’ other motions to exclude Dr. Stichter and omnibus motion in limine were denied as moot.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-04505
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas case 22-04998
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com