Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co.
944 P.2d 1279 | Hawaii Supreme Court | 1997
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A worker was injured by a straddle carrier manufactured by Clark Equipment. The jury found Clark liable for strict product liability and negligent design based on defects that existed when the equipment was made. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that while manufacturers have no obligation to add safety equipment after a product leaves the factory, they are still responsible for design flaws present at the time of manufacture. The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages and other issues.
Key Takeaways
- •Manufacturers cannot be sued for failing to retrofit existing equipment with new safety features after it's sold or delivered
- •Manufacturers remain liable for design defects and safety problems that existed when the product was originally manufactured
- •Document the condition of equipment at the time you receive it—defects present at delivery may support liability claims against the manufacturer
- •If injured by equipment, focus claims on original design flaws rather than missing modern safety upgrades
A manufacturer has no duty to retrofit its products with after-manufacture safety equipment.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue a manufacturer because they didn't add new safety equipment to equipment I'm using?
No. Manufacturers have no legal duty to retrofit existing equipment with safety features added after manufacture. However, you may have a claim if the equipment had a design defect or safety problem when it was originally made and sold. The key is proving the defect existed at the time of manufacture, not that newer safety options weren't added later.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.