Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Clayton Williams v. Knudson Mfg., Inc. * * * Civil Action No. JFM 99-1250 * * ***** MEMORANDUM

Clayton Williams suffered a disabling injury to one of his hands while working on a soffit machine manufactured by Knudson Manufacturing, Inc. Williams has sued the company, alleging strict liability in tort, negligence, and breach of warranty. Discovery has been completed, and defendant has moved for summary judgment. The motion will be granted. Defendant's soffit machine converts large rolls of aluminum into roof panels used to construct buildings. Rolls of aluminum are loaded into one end of the machine and are mechanically threaded through a series of rollers. The rollers bend the metal before cutting it into predetermined lengths. Plaintiff injured his left hand working on the machine on November 11, 1997, while he was employed as a machine operator by Peterson Aluminum, owner of the machine. The aluminum had jammed both at the shear device, located near the control panel, and in the middle set of rollers. The jams required plaintiff and his fellow operator, Gregory Peck, to cut off the aluminum at the feed end and the jam locations and to advance the aluminum through the machine in order to re-thread it. Peck was operating the controls and also trying to clear the jam just behind the control panel, while plaintiff was on the back side of the machine working to clear the other jam at the middle rollers. While leaning over the jam, Peck reached around the control panel to press the button that would jog

the metal. He accidentally pressed the "on" button, which caused Williams' middle and ring fingers to be caught between the rollers, crushing them and leading to their subsequent amputation. Both Peck and Williams were experienced operators of the soffit machine and fully appreciated the danger associated with operating the machine. Williams knew the machine had problems with metal shifting side to side. He also knew it would be dangerous to work on the machine while it was running because of the potential of the rollers to catch and the potential for hitting the wrong button. The dangerous consequences of hitting that button were fully evident to him. On this record it is clear that under any objective standard plaintiff must have comprehended the risk that was obvious to him. Accordingly, his assumption of the risk is established as a matter of law. See, e.g., Gibson v. Beaver, 226 A.2d 273, 275 (Md. 1967). His only real counter to defendant's motion is that his assumption of the risk was not voluntary because he feared losing his job. However, the Court of Appeals has expressly held that "an employee's purely subjective belief that the refusal to assume a risk would result in negative consequences, without more, does not create a factual dispute, necessitating a determination by the trier of fact." ADM v. Martin, 702 A.2d 730, 736 n.3 (Md.1997); see also Schroyer v. McNeal, 592 A.2d 1119 (Md. 1991); Burke v. Williams, 223 A.2d 187 (Md. 1966). Here, plaintiff has presented no evidence to support his alleged concern about the loss of his job other than his alleged subjective belief. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to the summary judgment it seeks.

2

A separate order effecting the ruling made in this memorandum is being entered herewith.

June 23, 2000

_______________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Clayton Williams v. Knudson Mfg., Inc. * * * Civil Action No. JFM 99-1250 * * *****

Order

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 23rd day of June 2000 ORDERED 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted; and 2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff.

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

4



Download Williams v Knudson.pdf

Maryland Law