Paverud

Paverud v. Niagara MacHine & Tool Works

Caution
189 Cal. App. 3d 858·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1414·234 Cal. Rptr. 585
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 1987B009698California2,455 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashby, J.

—Niagara Machine & Tool Works (Niagara) appeals from a judgment after jury trial in favor of respondent Cheryl Paverud (Paverud). Paverud successfully sued Niagara on the theories of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranties for the loss of four fingers resulting from an industrial accident. Niagara alleges several trial court errors involving Niagara’s defense of superseding cause, including the denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and refused jury instructions. Because the jury received no instruction on the critical theory of superseding cause, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

On December 1, 1978, Paverud worked for Anemostat Manufacturing (Anemostat), where she operated a punch press manufactured by Niagara in 1943. The press operated by a foot pedal; depressing the pedal caused the ram to fall. The press was manufactured and delivered without barrier guards, safety devices or warnings. Anemostat designed and installed a barrier guard, but it was frequently broken and commonly not used. Paverud lost four fingers from her right hand while operating the machine without the barrier guard.

One of Niagara’s defense…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.