By Sterling Anthony, CPP, expert witness in packaging, warnings, patent-infringement, cargo loading & securement
Synopsis
Company A contracted with Company B; afterwards, Company B subcontracted with Company C. The sequence went: Company B manufactured items, wood crated them, and shipped to Company C; and, Company C performed finishing work and reused the crates to ship to Company A. Serving as coordinator and problem-solver was an employee from a staffing agency, Company D.
At Company A, an employee assigned to opening crates cut a horizontal steel band, at which time, the front of the crate fell open and the contents, weighing more than a ton, fell forward, inflicting serious and permanent injuries.
The ensuing litigation against Companies B, C, and D alleged unreasonably dangerous packaged product and failure-to-warn.
I was retained by the attorney for the Plaintiff. My services included testimony at trial.
My opinions
The crate had design defects that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose.
The items were loaded within the crate in an unstable orientation and were inadequately blocked and braced, allowing the items to move and impact against the crate’s panels.
The crates were not fit for single-use and never should have been reused.
The first crate shipped from Company B to Company C came apart in transit; however, rather than investigate the roles of how the crate was designed and loaded, the solution taken was to place a horizontal steel band around the crate.
Companies B, C, and D believed safety depended on removing the top of the crate and unloading the crate without having cut the steel band; nonetheless, they provided no warnings, neither to follow a specific sequence, nor to not cut the band.
All of the Defendants lacked training, knowledge, and skill in the design and construction of wood crates and in the design of effective warnings; however, they made decisions about items that were inherently hazardous due to weight and size.
Had the crate been properly designed, constructed, and loaded, there would not have been a need for a band; even so, reliance on a band to contain tons of content violates all notions of safety. The ill-advised reliance on the band and the unreasonably dangerous nature of the crate and contents notwithstanding, at minimum, there should have been warnings.
Result
Verdict for Plaintiff.