Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
February 6, 2001 Session McARTHUR DAVIS v. KOMATSU AMERICA INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, ET AL.
Rule 23 Certified Question of Law United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit No. 99-5799

No. M2000-01373-SC-R-23-CQ - Filed April 18, 2001

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,1 this Court accepted certification of the following question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: Does Tennessee products liability law include a "component parts doctrine" as described by the district court, and if so, what are the precise contours of the doctrine? We conclude that Tennessee products liability law does include a component parts doctrine and that Section 5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability (1997) is an accurate statement of the doctrine in Tennessee. We further conclude that the parameters of the doctrine are illustrated by comment e to Section 5. Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 23 Certified Question of Law FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, C.J., ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., JANICE M. HOLDER, and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., joined. Dean White, Memphis, Tennessee, for the petitioner, McArthur Davis. Lee L. Piovarcy and Shea S. Wellford, Memphis, Tennessee, for the respondents, Komatsu America Industries Corporation and Komatsu Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Komatsu, Limited. OPINION

"The Supreme Court may, at its discretion, answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a District Court of the United States in Tennessee, or a United States Bankruptcy Court in Tennessee. This rule may be invoked when the certifying court determines that, in a proceeding before it, there are questions of law of this state which will be determinative of the cause and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precede nt in the de cisions of th e Supre me Co urt of Ten nessee."

1

I. Factual & Procedural Background The facts from which this lawsuit arose were described in detail by the Sixth Circuit in an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's decision granting summary judgment on Davis's claim against Komatsu for failure to warn.2 As stated in that opinion, the relevant facts are as follows: Davis was a twenty-five year old laborer who suffered a severe crush injury to his dominant hand while operating a press line at the Sharp Manufacturing Plant in Memphis, Tennessee. He brought this products liability suit against DefendantsAppellees Komatsu America Industries Corp. and Komatsu Mexicana, L.A. De C.V., a subsidiary of Komatsu, Ltd. (collectively "Komatsu"), and Orii Corporation of America and Orii Corporation ("Orii"). Davis settled his claims against Orii. On April 16, 1999, the district court granted summary judgment for Komatsu. A. The Press Line Sharp operates a plant in Memphis that manufactures microwave ovens. Plant No. 3 contains automated press lines that stamp, form and assemble various parts used in the manufacture of the ovens. Specifically, the plant includes a 150- ton press line, the "200-1" press line (200 tons), and the "200-2" press line. The former two lines were installed in 1992, while the 200-2 line, the one where Davis worked and was injured, was installed in 1994. The line's design and layout were based on a drawing drafted by the engineering department of Orii, pursuant to Sharp's specifications. The 200-2 line includes six Komatsu presses, which arrived at Sharp between February 17 and March 11, 1994, and were installed by a Komatsu service technician. The Sharp press line operates as follows. First, the de-stacker feeds sheets of metal, or "blanks," into the press line. Through the operation of two "jaws," the press then stamps the blanks into various shapes and punches pre-determined holes into the blanks. The hole-punching process creates scrap metal waste, or "slugs," which occasionally get caught in the press die,3 causing the blank to deform. After the blanks are shaped and punched by each press, they are transferred from press to press by transfer robots. At the last press in the line, an automated robot unloader removes the completed blank from the press die area and transfers it to a conveyor belt.4 A press line operator and an unloader staff each press line. The press line operator is generally in charge of the operation of the line, and of starting press line operations. The unloader removes finished parts from the conveyor belt and stacks
2 3 4

Davis v. K omatsu Ame rica Indu stries Corp . et al., No. 99-5579 (6th Cir. 2000). The die is the tool that forms and punches holes into the blanks.

The robotic unloader has an expanded metal guard on each side designed to protect human unloaders from any potential danger associated with the moving parts of the robotic unloader.

-2-

them into baskets to transfer to other parts of the plant for further assembly. The unloader also inspects parts for quality control; if he notices a misformed part, he is to stop the line and notify the line operator. If a malformation is caused by a "slug," either the unloader or line operator will remove the slug from the press die area. Each Komatsu press in the Sharp line has a safety device known as a "light curtain" attached to its front side. The light curtain projects an infrared beam of light between light posts. If the beam is broken by any object, the light curtain transmits a signal that a fault has occurred and the line shuts down. Under the 200-2 press line's layout, however, the robotic unloader on the last press (press No. 4), was placed in the area protected by the light curtain. Thus, the light curtain for Press No. 4 had to be deactivated for the press line to operate. While each individual machine in a press line has its own control panel, each line also has an Orii master control panel used to control the individual machines. Numerous buttons on either the individual or master control panels shut down the line. When the master control panel is used to start the line, an alarm (manufactured, supplied and installed by Orii) sounds, and after a short delay, the line starts. B. Davis's Accident Hired on June 6, 1996, Davis was working as an unloader on the 200-2 line on September 22, 1996. At one point, the line was shut down to switch from the manufacture of one part to another; the "change-over" technician (known as a "diesetter"), Wayne Holcomb, completed the required "change-over" and ran a limited test production run of the new part to be made. During that test run, Davis noticed a deformity in the blanks being pressed. He shut down the line by pressing a button on the unloader and signaled the problem to Holcomb. Davis and Holcomb then discussed the problem. After the discussion, Holcomb removed a slug from the die area and returned to the master control panel. Davis, thinking Holcomb was taking one of the deformed parts to the quality control office as part of normal procedure, approached Press No. 4, seeking to remove a slug from the die area. Reaching between the deactivated safety light curtain posts, Davis picked up a slug and was removing it when Holcomb restarted the line using the master control panel. Although the warning sounded, Davis contended he did not hear the sound. The press crushed Davis's dominant hand, resulting in the amputation of half of his thumb, his first three fingers, and part of the web of his hand. After his injury, Davis filed a complaint against defendants in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. Both Komatsu and Orii removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Davis alleged causes of action under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978, Tenn. Code Ann.

Download komatsur23.pdf

Tennessee Law