Vallee v. Crown Equipment ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30053 April 14, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Dawson Vallee, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Crown Equipment Corporation, doing business as Crown Lift
Trucks,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-CV-1571
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Elrod and Oldham, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
A forklift accident left Dawson Vallee with an amputated leg. Vallee
sued Crown Equipment Corporation, the forklift’s designer and
manufacturer, alleging that a design defect in the forklift caused the accident.
The district court granted summary judgment to Crown. We AFFIRM.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30053
I.
The Crown RM6000 is a stand-up rider forklift designed to lift and
move palleted materials in narrow warehouse aisles. To operate it, the driver
stands sideways with his hands on the controls and leans against a backrest.
The forks are located to the user’s right, and the operator compartment is
open (i.e., there is no door) to the user’s left. To move the forklift, the
operator moves the multi-task handle in the desired direction of travel. But
movement is impossible unless (1) the operator’s left foot is depressing the
brake pedal and (2) the operator’s right foot is in contact with the sensor pad.
Once in motion, the operator can activate the brake by raising his left heel.
The forklift can also be slowed or stopped using a technique called
“plugging” where the operator pulls the multi-task handle in the opposite
direction of the direction of travel.
At the end of a work shift, Dawson Vallee attempted to park a Crown
RM6000 forklift. But he lost control of the forklift. Vallee first attempted to
“plug” the forklift to stop it and next attempted to apply the brakes by raising
his left foot. Neither attempt worked. He testified that the forklift “jerked
[him] around” and “tossed [his] leg around the outside of the machine.”
While his left leg was exposed, the forklift collided with a pole and crushed
his left foot between the pole and the forklift. Tragically, this led to the
amputation of Vallee’s left leg below the knee.
Vallee sued Crown in Louisiana state court. Crown removed to federal
court and moved for summary judgment on Vallee’s design-defect claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to Crown. Vallee now appeals.
II.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment and its
application of Louisiana law de novo. See Burdett v. Remington Arms Co., 854
F.3d 733, 735 (5th Cir. 2017).
2
Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30053
The Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) provides “the
exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damage caused by their
products.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.52 et seq. Vallee’s LPLA claims are
design-defect claims. See id. § 9:2800.56. To succeed on an LPLA design-
defect claim, a plaintiff must put forward an “alternative design” that is both
“capable of preventing the claimant’s damage,” § 9:2800.56(1), and meets
the statute’s detailed risk-utility analysis, § 9:2800.56(2). The statute’s risk-
utility analysis asks whether the “likelihood that the product’s design would
cause the claimant’s damage and the gravity of that damage outweighed the
burden on the manufacturer of adopting such alternative design and the
adverse effect, if any, of such alternative design on the utility of the product.”
§ 9:2800.56(2); see Morgan v. Gaylord Container Corp., 30 F.3d 586, 590 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Section 9:2800.56 requires that an alternative design “be reasonably
specific and not based on mere speculation.” Gray v. Indus. Plant Maint., 2004
WL 1661209, at *5 (E.D. La. 2004) (emphasis added); accord Tassin v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 946 F. Supp. 1241, 1250–52 (M.D. La. 1996). Vague
alternative concepts and suggestions—lacking in specific detail—do not
provide a jury with enough information to determine whether a suggested
alternative meets the statute’s requirements. See, e.g., Seither v. Winnebago
Indus., Inc., 853 So. 2d 37, 41 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (a “mere[] concept”
doesn’t qualify as an alternative design under the LPLA in the absence of
“technical drawings, calculations, scientific study, photographs, or the
publication of any engineering principles as to this proposed alternative
design”); Andrew v. Dufour, 882 So. 2d 15, 25–26 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004)
(concluding a suggested alternative design did not satisfy the LPLA where
the evidence in the record only showed that the alternative design might have
prevented the accident not that it would have prevented it); accord Crowe v.
Winn-Dixie of La., Inc., 2010 WL 502782, at *3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2010).
3
Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30053
III.
Vallee proposed three alternative forklift designs. We hold none meet
the LPLA’s requirements.
A Safety Door. Vallee’s experts first opined that the addition of “a
safety door on the operator compartment” is a “reasonably available
alternative design[]” that “would have virtually eliminated the risk of the
injury suffered by” Vallee. Vallee’s first expert, Dr. John Meyer, included in
his report six different photographs of forklifts with doors manufactured by
Crown or its competitors. Meyer stated that these photographs illustrate a
“variety of stand-up forklifts displaying a number of different door designs
and features.” But he did not include specifications regarding the actual
designs (e.g., door dimensions, composition, attachment methods, etc.).
Vallee’s second expert, Dr Richard Ziernicki, stated in his report that Crown
“should have provided the forklift with a spring assisted or latching door, or
operator guard as standard guarding equipment.” He claimed “[l]atching
and spring loaded and even interlocked doors, or operator guards were all
technologically and economically feasible.” Finally, Ziernicki surveyed
multiple door designs from Crown’s competitors and included several
photographs. But, like Meyer, he did not include specifications to accompany
the photos in his report.
The LPLA requires more detail. Neither expert included “technical
drawings[] [or] calculations” to accompany their suggested alternative
addition-of-a-door designs. Seither, 853 So. 2d at 41. And neither discussed
how their safety door alternatives would actually apply to the specific forklift
in question here—the RM6000. See Scordill v. Louisville Ladder Grp., LLC,
2003 WL 22427981, at *9–10 (E.D. La. 2003) (requiring expert testimony to
show how the suggested alternative design would apply to the “incident”
4
Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30053
product in the case). Thus, the proposed safety door alternative doesn’t
satisfy the LPLA’s requirements.
A Modified Foot Pedal. Vallee’s experts next proposed modifying the
foot-pedal braking system on the Crown RM6000. Meyer proposed
“reprogramming [] the foot pedals on the floor of the Crown forklift” by
“swapping the existing pedals, so that the brake is applied by the right foot,
rather than the left.” To illustrate this, he included two diagrams of the
existing design with arrows labeling where the new pedal would go. He
acknowledged that, although he hadn’t “addressed any minimal changes in
the shape and/or position of the pedals themselves, . . . one could expect that
minor ergonomic adjustments could occur to maximize the effectiveness of
the new pedal layout.” Further, Meyer suggested “[a]nother potential
alternative design” of the foot pedals. For this alternative, he pointed to a
pushdown brake used by a different forklift manufacturer. Meyer asserted his
belief that “the addition of a door is required to achieve acceptable risk,”
whereas the foot-pedal modifications merely “could . . . have prevented Mr.
Vallee’s accident from occurring.” (emphasis added). Ziernicki by contrast
stated that he would support “[e]ither having the brake under both feet with
the operator trained to use the right foot, or having a pushdown brake with
placement sensors to encourage proper operator positioning of both feet.”
Once again, neither expert included any specific details to support
their alternative foot-pedal design concepts. See Seither, 853 So.2d at 41
(concluding the absence of “technical drawings” and “calculations” meant
a suggested alternative concept did not meet the LPLA’s requirements).
Meyer’s two “diagrams” amounted to pictures of the design that already
exists, and he recognized that he did not actually “address[]” the effects of
his proposed foot-pedal designs to the RM6000. See Scordill, 2003 WL
22427981, at *9–10 (requiring expert testimony to show how the suggested
alternative design would apply to the “incident” product in the case). And
5
Case: 22-30053 Document: 00516712228 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-30053
Ziernicki included no detail whatsoever. Thus, the experts’ proposed foot-
pedal-modification alternatives also do not satisfy the LPLA’s requirements.
A Backrest Sensor. Finally, Vallee’s experts proposed “the addition of
a backrest presence sensor that detects when an operator is in t[he] normal
position, . . . and ensures that the travel circuit is disconnected when this
position is not maintained.”
Even assuming Vallee didn’t forfeit his backrest-sensor argument by
failing to include the design in his pretrial statement, the record is clear that
Vallee’s back remained against the backrest during the incident. That means
he cannot show that any form of backrest sensor was capable of preventing
his damage as required by § 9:2800.56(1). ROA.22188–89 (citing Vallee’s
deposition where he testifies that he had his “back against the backrest”
during the incident).
IV.
Finally, Vallee asserts that the district court erred by requiring him to
commit to one alternative design rather than proffering more than one. We
disagree that the district court imposed any such requirement. Louisiana law
allows plaintiffs to proffer multiple alternative designs. See, e.g., Johnson v.
Black & Decker U.S., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1360, 1367 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1997)
(considering two). But the plaintiff still must prove that at least one of them
meets the requirements of § 9:2800.56. Vallee failed to do so.
AFFIRMED.
6