New Trial Granted In Product Liability Case With Sophisticated User Defense.

Plaintiff, a maintenance worker, was using a power drill to drill a hole in a piece of angle iron when the drill bit bound and the drill counter rotated, twisting his arm and causing serious injuries. His theory at trial was that the drill should not have been used without a side handle, and that it was negligently and defectively designed because it did not include an interlock device that would prevent the drill from being used when the side handle was not attached. Defendant asserted that plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the drill, and any failure to warn was not a legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries because plaintiff already knew or should have known of the dangers involved in the use of the product. Plaintiff’s expert admitted that someone with plaintiff’s background and experience should have known that a drill could bind, counter rotate, and injure the user. Another expert opined that, with his work experience, knowledge, and skill set, plaintiff would be aware of what the subject drill was capable of and that it did have a side handle. The jury, in a special verdict, found the drill was not negligently or defectively designed. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as to the failure to warn claims only, on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. On appeal, defendant challenged both the grant of a new trial and the denial of its motion for summary adjudication based on its contention plaintiff was a sophisticated user. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge and affirmed. (Buckner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; December 20, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 522.