Huynh

Huynh v. Ingersoll-Rand

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 825·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 635·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296·93 Daily Journal DAR 7672·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4538
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 17, 1993B067825California3,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this case, a worker sued the manufacturer of a hand-held power grinder which severely injured his eye. The trial court granted summary judgment on grounds the grinder was “misused” by attaching the wrong disc to the machine. We reverse because the defendant failed to sustain its burden of proving the “misuse” caused the injury or of demonstrating the manufacturer provided an adequate warning against this potential dangerous mismatch of components.

Facts and Proceedings Below

In September 1987, appellant Jones T. Huynh applied for a position as a welder at Southwest Marine, Inc. This firm required all prospective welders to demonstrate their ability through a “welding test.” On September 27, 1987, the third day of his test, Huynh was required to use a grinder. Some Southwest Marine employee handed Huynh an Ingersoll-Rand (Ingersoll) model DG220 pneumatic hand grinder with attached disc. The following language was inscribed in tiny letters on the “trigger” of the Ingersoll pneumatic grinder.

Warning

Operate with Equip Rated at Tool R.P.M.

Model DG220 Rated 30000 Ser AHJ20154

(A photocopy of the imprint of this language was included in the record before the trial…

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.