Wednesday, November 09, 2005

This is a news article discussing my favorite case I have ever worked:


SMETHPORT - Wear and tear, not a manufacturer's defect, lead to the failure of spark sensors which led to a massive fatal explosion and fire at the Temple-Inland Particleboard Plant on Feb. 13, 2001, ruled McKean County President Judge John Cleland in a summary judgment in favor of the sole remaining defendant in a locally filed civil lawsuit from the blast.

In an order entered Oct. 17 in McKean County Court, Cleland granted summary judgment in favor of GreCon Electronics Inc., ruling the company was not responsible for the failure of the spark sensors the night of the explosion.

Outside contractors had been welding inside the plant that day and sparks had fallen onto sawdust, igniting it. Employees of the plant worked for several hours to try to extinguish all the sparks, according to court records, but the sparks eventually entered an auger, causing an explosion and fire.

Three men - James Covert, Roger Smith and Gregg Engelken - were killed. Several others were seriously injured, including Tony Barnish, Sandy Bussard, David Johnson, Stephen Meade and David Whipkey.

Cleland's order establishes a list of facts leading up to the explosion in 2001.

In 1991, GreCon sold spark detection sensors and a central control panel used to monitor the sensors to the Allegheny Particleboard Plant, which later was sold to Temple-Inland. The system is designed to "detect sparks and light sources and activate an automated alarm and water deluge response. These sensors worked for 10 years without incident," Cleland wrote.

On Feb. 13, 2001, at about 5:30 p.m., several employees saw an ember in an outfeed conveyor beyond three sensors and just before the fourth sensor.

"Despite the presence of the ember, none of the GreCon sensors activated and, at approximately 8:55 p.m., there was a large explosion and fire."

The survivors and the family members of the men killed in the blast filed suit against the contractors they felt were responsible for the explosion.

"Plaintiffs have settled their claims with all the defendants except GreCon," Cleland wrote in the order.

The settlement was sealed, but was referred to in a wrongful death claim for Roberta and Tristan Smith, listed as the spouse and son of Roger Smith. On Oct. 13, 2004, a settlement was agreed to of $21 million, the court records read.

Cleland noted that the only remaining claim in the suit was of product malfunction. Explaining Pennsylvania's standards for proof of product malfunction, Cleland noted that a plaintiff is required to prove "1. the product was defective; 2. the defect caused the harm; and 3. the defect existed when it left the hands of the defendant."

Assessing the information presented through depositions, Cleland wrote that the spark detectors had failed to operate as intended, as no alarm sounded and no water deluge was initiated.

Therefore, a reasonable jury could find that the "alleged malfunction caused the explosion which then caused the plaintiffs' injuries."

"Finally, the plaintiffs must show a jury could reasonably infer the existence of a manufacturing defect from the sensor's malfunction at the time of the explosion," Cleland explained.

"Although the plaintiffs have presented evidence of the malfunction, they have not satisfied their burden under the malfunction theory because they have not provided evidence such that a reasonable jury could find a defect existed when the sensors left GreCon's control."

Prolonged use of the sensors without prior incident "precludes a reasonable inference the sensors were defective when they left GreCon's control," Cleland explained.

Therefore, Cleland granted GreCon's motion for summary judgment.

3 Comments:

Blogger ell said...

so this all boils down to: grecon was not found at fault, but they still paid out $21 million? who did you represent?

11:52 AM  
Blogger Knight said...

what it means is all the other defendants settled out, for the 21 million (it was actually more, the paper got it wrong). GreCon got out on Summary Judgment. I represented on of the other Defendants, not mentioned in the article. We paid 2% of the global settlement. Also, the Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration, setting up an appeal of the Judge’s finding.

12:05 PM  
Blogger ell said...

*headspinningfromallthelawyerlingo*

8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home