BITCO General Ins. Co. et al v. Lippmann-Milwaukee Inc.
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, the Court DENIES Defendant Lippmann-Milwaukee, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. A status conference will be set by separate order to discuss a discovery schedule and to select a trial date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 10/7/19. (kll)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BITCO GENERAL INS. CO. a/s/o
COLUMBIA QUARRY CO., and
Case No. 3:18-cv-1718-GCS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On August 9, 2016, Plaintiff Andrew Kreher, then an employee of Columbia
Quarry Company, was using a 3650 Jaw Crusher, a rock crusher manufactured and
designed by Defendant Lippmann-Milwaukee, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that, while the power
of the jaw crusher was turned off, a hydraulic hose on the equipment blew, causing the
crusher to crush and trap Kreher’s hand and arm, causing extensive and permanent
damage. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in
Monroe County, Illinois, alleging claims of strict liability and negligence against
Lippmann-Milwaukee. Defendant timely removed the action to this Court and moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (Docs. 1, 10). The matter is fully briefed and ripe for ruling. For the
reasons delineated below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion.
Page 1 of 5
Plaintiff Andrew Kreher was an employee of the Columbia Quarry Company in
2016 when he was injured at work. Plaintiff BITCO General Insurance Co. was the
workers’ compensation carrier for Columbia Quarry Company and for Kreher. In 2016,
Columbia Quarry Company purchased a 3650 Jaw Crusher, a rock crusher manufactured
and designed by Defendant Lippmann-Milwaukee, Inc (“Lippmann”), to crush rock at
the quarry. Lippmann provided training to the quarry company and to Kreher during
the summer of 2016. The training involved instruction on the use and operation of the
rock crusher, including the proper way to adjust the discharge size of the rock using a
hand pump that was connected using hydraulic hoses.
On or about August 9, 2016, while the power to the rock crusher was turned off,
Kreher was adjusting the discharge size of rocks when a hydraulic hose “blew.” Kreher’s
hand and arm were trapped and crushed by the rock crusher, causing extensive and
permanent damage. Plaintiffs allege a strict product liability claim, maintaining that the
rock crusher was being used in the manner and purpose for which it was intended but
that it was in an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition (Count I). Plaintiffs also
allege that Lippmann was negligent, as the company knew or should have known that
the rock crusher was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition when it was
placed in the stream of commerce by Lippman (Count II).
A complaint must include enough factual content to give the opposing party
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Page 2 of 5
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 698 (2009). To satisfy the
notice-pleading standard of Rule 8, a complaint must provide a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in a manner that
provides the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007)(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). In
ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must “examine whether
the allegations in the complaint state a ‘plausible’ claim for relief.” Arnett v. Webster, 658
F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011)(citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-678). A complaint “must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face,” rather than providing allegations that do not rise above the speculative level. Id.
A. Strict Liability Claim
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to allege with the requisite
specificity that the 3650 Jaw Crusher was defectively designed or manufactured. Under
Illinois law, a strict-liability claim based on a defective product requires a plaintiff to
prove, “(1) a condition of the product as a result of manufacturing or design, (2) that made
the product unreasonably dangerous, (3) and that existed at the time the product left the
defendant’s control, and (4) an injury to the plaintiff, (5) that was proximately caused by
the condition.” Clark v. River Metals Recycling, LLC, 929 F.3d 434, 439 (7th Cir.
2019)(quoting Mikolajcyzk v. Ford Motor Co., 901 N.E.2d 329, 345 (Ill. 2008)).
Plaintiffs’ complaint plausibly alleges a claim for strict products liability. The
complaint explains that a hydraulic hose was defective at the time Lippmann released
Page 3 of 5
the rock crusher at issue into the stream of commerce. Plaintiffs claim that it was defective
due to the product’s defective design or manufacturing defects and because the rock
crusher lacked adequate warnings and instructions about hand placement during
adjustments. Plaintiffs also allege sufficiently that these conditions made the rock crusher
unreasonably dangerous and that the conditions caused physical injuries to Kreher. As
such, Plaintiffs’ claims in Count I satisfy the notice-pleading requirement of Rule 8.
B. Negligence Claim
Lippmann argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations in Count II are too threadbare to pass
muster. A plaintiff attempting to establish liability based on a theory of negligent product
design “must show duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages.” Malen v. MTD
Products, Inc., 628 F.3d 296, 307 (7th Cir. 2010)(citing references omitted). Unlike a claim
for strict liability, negligence claims involve both a product’s condition and a defendant’s
fault. Id. That is, a plaintiff “must show that the manufacturer knew (or should have
known) that the product was unsafe.” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Lippmann owed a duty to exercise ordinary care in the
manufacturing, design, sale and advertising of the rock crusher. They also allege that, as
Lippmann provided training on how to use the equipment, they owed a duty to exercise
ordinary care in the training process, and the complaint claims that the Jaw Crusher came
with insufficient warnings and instructions. These allegations plausibly plead that
Lippmann owed either a duty of ordinary care or a duty to warn of the dangers of using
the Jaw Crusher to Plaintiffs.
Page 4 of 5
The complaint also sufficiently pleads ways in which Lippmann breached its
alleged duty, including by failing to warn users adequately and by failing to provide
appropriate instruction as to hand placement during adjustment of the equipment. As a
result of these breaches, Kreher was seriously injured. Unlike the strict liability claim,
Plaintiffs allege in Count II that Lippmann knew, or should have known, of the
deficiencies and of the unreasonably dangerous conditions when it placed the Jaw
Crusher into the stream of commerce. As such, Plaintiffs sufficiently state a negligence
claim in accordance with Rule 8.
For the above-stated reasons, Defendant Lippmann-Milwaukee, Inc.’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 10) is DENIED. A status conference will be set by separate order to discuss
a discovery schedule and to select a trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
Gilbert C. Sison
Dated: October 7, 2019.
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?