Garland Lankford and Charlotte Lankford v. Garland Lankford and Charlotte Lankford v.

Garland Lankford and Charlotte Lankford v‪.‬

ID.17204; 879 P.2d 1120; 126 Idaho 187 (1994)

    • $9.00
    • $9.00

Descripción editorial

SILAK, Justice BACKGROUND Appellant Garland Lankford (Lankford) was seriously injured when he was struck by a log while working at the Boise Cascade Mill in Emmett, Idaho. The log was being debarked by a machine manufactured by respondent Nicholson Manufacturing Company (Nicholson). Ordinarily, the debarker is fed logs by an in-feed conveyor. As a log enters the debarker, "hold down" rolls apply several tons of pressure to the log, holding it secure so that the debarker can effectively scrape the bark from the log by means of a rotating ring of blades. On occasion, the spinning blade ring can catch the log and spin it. This is especially likely to occur when irregularly shaped logs are fed through the debarker and where the operator fails to apply the hold down rolls. Lankford was injured when the debarker blades caught a log, rotating one end of the log and thrashing the other end in a wide arc so that it hit Lankford. Lankford brought a product liability action against Nicholson, raising alternative theories of negligence and strict liability. Specifically, Lankford alleged that Nicholson was negligent in designing an unsafe debarking machine and in failing to provide adequate warnings, or that the design was defective and the machine was inherently dangerous. At trial, Nicholson took the position that Lankford's employer, Boise Cascade, was responsible for worker safety and should have installed guards on the debarker. Nicholson presented evidence showing that it was industry custom for the machine manufacturers to provide only the machine, while the mill owner designs the rest of the "log factory system." According to Nicholson, the design of this system is the key element in providing for worker safety. Nicholson thus argued that it acted reasonably when it chose not to provide a safety device designed to prevent this type of accident on its machine.

GÉNERO
Técnicos y profesionales
PUBLICADO
1994
22 de agosto
IDIOMA
EN
Inglés
EXTENSIÓN
8
Páginas
EDITORIAL
LawApp Publishers
VENDEDOR
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
TAMAÑO
66
KB

Más libros de Supreme Court Of Idaho

Helen H. Keller v. Kenneth D. Rogstad Helen H. Keller v. Kenneth D. Rogstad
1987
State Idaho v. Timothy J. Labelle State Idaho v. Timothy J. Labelle
1995
Roy Lee Phillips v. Consolidated Supply Roy Lee Phillips v. Consolidated Supply
1995
Nancy B. Wulff v. Sun Valley Company Nancy B. Wulff v. Sun Valley Company
1995
Matter Objection to Imposed Informal Matter Objection to Imposed Informal
1995
Yolanda De Los Santos v. J.R. Simplot Yolanda De Los Santos v. J.R. Simplot
1995