Faulkner v. ABB Inc.
Filing
178
OPINION & ORDER denying 128 Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 8/30/2012. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:08-CV-212
NANCY FAULKNER, Individually
and as Administratrix of the
Estate of ROBERT FAULKNER
PLAINTIFF
V.
ABB, INC.
DEFENDANT
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant ABB, Inc.’s motion in limine to exclude
testimony or argument that the analyzer shelter at issue was defective due to the absence of
atmospheric monitoring devices or alarms (DN 128). Plaintiff has responded (DN 170) and
Defendant has replied (DN 173). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion (DN 128) is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Nancy Faulkner, brought this products liability action against Defendant ABB,
Inc. (“ABB”) after her husband, Robert David Faulkner, died in a workplace accident.1 Robert
Faulkner was employed by Arkema, Inc. (“Arkema”), a chemical plant in Calvert City,
Kentucky. On October 30, 2007, the Arkema facility underwent a plant-wide power shutdown in
1
Plaintiff originally brought this action in state court against ABB, Inc. ABB subsequently
removed the case to this Court in December 2008 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ABB
then received leave of this Court to file a third party complaint against Arkema, Inc. for purposes
of apportionment of fault, contribution, and indemnity. After discovery revealed that contractors
Apex Engineering or Riley Electric may have had some involvement in the installation of the
analyzer shelter, and that either Riley Electric or Morsey Contractors installed the conduit,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Riley Electric Company, Morsey Contractors, and
Apex Engineering as defendants. In March 2011, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against
the added defendants for failure to add the defendants within the one-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the only remaining parties in this action are Nancy Faulkner and ABB.
order to perform preventative maintenance. After Robert Faulkner failed to appear for a planned
meeting at the end of his shift that day, Plaintiff notified Arkema. Arkema employees searched
the plant grounds and discovered Robert Faulkner unresponsive inside of an analyzer shelter.
Scott Jaco, one of the Arkema employees who first discovered Robert Faulkner, testified that
Faulkner’s skin color was blue and that he was not breathing. Efforts to revive him were
unsuccessful. The investigation determined that Robert Faulkner died of asphyxiation due to
nitrogen gas, which displaced the oxygen in the analyzer shelter during the power shutdown.
The analyzer shelter in question was manufactured by ABB and purchased by Arkema in
2001 as part of a plant upgrade project. Arkema ordered various analytical instruments from
ABB which would evaluate gas samples extracted from the smokestack via sample tubes
connected to the instruments. To house these instruments, Arkema also ordered a prefabricated
shelter from ABB. According to ABB, it installed the analytical instruments and the analyzer
shelter in accordance with Arkema’s specifications. In accordance with Arkema’s specifications,
the analyzer shelter was equipped with a power ventilator and a wall-mounted air-conditioning
unit. At some point after delivery, but before Robert Faulkner’s death, Arkema installed sensors
detecting the presence of carbon monoxide or diminished oxygen in the analyzer shelter, which
were connected to warning lights and an audible alarm horn.
Once the shelter was delivered to Arkema, outside contractors completed the connections
to the sample lines and utilities, including electricity and instrument air. Instrument air is air that
has been purified and dehumidified for technical applications, such as purging analytical
instruments. There were two cabinets mounted on the exterior wall of the analyzer shelter.
Inside these cabinets were various valves, sample conditioning heaters, and a small electric pump
which propelled gas through the lines. The instrument air constantly flowed to cool the electric
pump. The instrument air system was designed in such a manner that, in the event of power loss,
the instrument air would automatically be replaced by stored nitrogen gas. ABB contends that it
was not informed that Arkema’s system was configured so that instrument air automatically
backed-up with nitrogen gas plant-wide.
During the October 30, 2007 power shutdown, the instrumentation in the analyzer shelter
and the electric pump in the exterior cabinet were shut down; however, the nitrogen gas backup
continued to flow from the instrument air-line. Sample tubes passing through the exterior
cabinet entered the analyzer shelter and connected to the analyzing instruments by means of a
metal conduit. Plaintiff contends that, during the power shutdown, nitrogen gas flowed from the
exterior cabinet and migrated into the shelter through those conduits. The nitrogen then
displaced the oxygen inside the analyzer shelter, creating an oxygen-deficient environment.
Because the power was shut down, the sensors detecting diminished oxygen levels in the
analyzer shelter were not operating. It is Plaintiff’s position that the analyzer shelter
manufactured by ABB was defective due to ABB’s failure to account for the use of back-up
nitrogen.
ABB now moves to exclude any testimony regarding the absence of atmospheric
monitoring devices or alarms at the time of manufacturing, due to the fact that such devices were
installed in the analyzer shelter by Arkema prior to Robert Faulkner’s accident. In response,
Plaintiff contends that evidence that the analyzer shelter did not contain an atmospheric
monitoring devices or alarms at the time it was delivered to Arkema is relevant to show that
ABB did not act with reasonable care and that ABB designed the analyzer shelter without
sufficient specifications from Arkema. Plaintiff further contends that ABB could not delegate its
duty to warn to Arkema and that any safety devices installed by Arkema after the delivery of the
analyzer shelter did not cure the unreasonably dangerous condition created by ABB.
STANDARD
Motions in limine provided in advance of trial are appropriate if they eliminate evidence
that has no legitimate use at trial for any purpose. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Serv.,
115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1997); Bouchard v. Am. Home Products Corp., 213 F.Supp.2d 802,
810 (N.D.Ohio 2002) (“The court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when
evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S.
38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984))). Only where the evidence satisfies this high
bar should the court exclude it; if not, “rulings [on evidence] should be deferred until trial so that
questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”
Gresh v. Waste Serv. of Am., Inc., 738 F.Supp.2d 702, 706 (E.D.Ky.2010) (quoting Indiana Ins.
Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 846 (N.D.Ohio 2004)). Even if a motion in limine is
denied, the court may revisit the decision at trial when the parties have more thoroughly
presented the disputed evidence. See id. (“Denial of a motion in limine does not guarantee that
the evidence will be admitted at trial, and the court will hear objections to such evidence as they
arise at trial.”).
DISCUSSION
The issue for this Court is whether ABB’s failure to install atmospheric monitoring
devices and alarms at the time it manufactured the analyzer shelter is relevant to Plaintiff’s
claims, given the fact that Arkema installed such devices subsequent to the delivery of the
analyzer shelter but prior to Mr. Faulkner’s accident.
Plaintiff’s theory is that the analyzer shelter, as delivered, was defective because ABB
failed to account for the use of Arkema’s nitrogen back-up system. The Court gleans that it is
Plaintiff’s position that ABB should have accounted for the use of back-up nitrogen by installing
atmospheric monitoring devices and alarms which would function in the event of a power outage
– either through the installation of a back-up power system for the analyzer shelter or through the
installation of an atmospheric monitoring device which did not rely upon power for its operation.
Although ABB argues that Arkema’s subsequent installation of an atmospheric monitoring
device and alarm renders its failure to do so immaterial, Plaintiff argues that Arkema’s
installation did not cure the defect that existed at the time the analyzer shelter was delivered to
Arkema.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff and will not exclude testimony regarding the absence of
monitoring devices and alarms at the time of manufacturing. Under the Federal Rules of
Evidence, “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is considered
relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Arkema’s installation of such devices – which did not operate in
a power outage – did not negate or cure the product defect alleged by Plaintiff. As such, the
absence of such devices is relevant to show that the analyzer shelter was defective at the time of
manufacturing.2
CONCLUSION
2
Adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, Kentucky imposes strict liability when the
“‘design itself selected by the manufacturer amounted to a defective condition which was
unreasonably dangerous.’” Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., 71 F.3d 531, 536 (6th
Cir.1995) (citing Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., 602 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Ky.1980)). The
plaintiff must establish causation under the substantial factor test—that is, the plaintiff must
prove that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's harm. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion in limine (DN 128) is DENIED.
August 30, 2012
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?