Matthew W. Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a published Court of Appeals decision concerning Matthew Murphy's product-liability claims against Columbus McKinnon Corporation arising from injuries caused by utility-pole lifting tongs. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of summary judgment in part, held that Wis. Stat. § 895.047 retains the consumer-contemplation standard while requiring proof of a safer reasonable alternative design, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff asserting a strict-liability defective-design claim under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1) must prove all five statutory requirements: a defective design involving a reasonable alternative design whose omission renders the product not reasonably safe; that the defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous; that the condition existed when the product left the manufacturer's control; that the product reached the consumer without substantial change; and that the condition caused the claimant's damages.
2. For a design-defect claim, Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a) requires proof that the foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by adopting a reasonable alternative design and that omission of the alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe.
3. Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(b) codifies Wisconsin's common-law consumer-contemplation standard for determining whether a defective condition renders a product unreasonably dangerous.
4. Wis. Stat. § 895.047 does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing a common-law negligent-design claim in addition to a statutory strict-liability claim.
5. Summary judgment for CMC was improper because the record contained genuine disputes of material fact concerning the alternative design, causation, Murphy's use and placement of the tongs, the height of the lift, whether he conducted a test lift, and the parties' comparative negligence.

Questions Presented

1. What requirements must a plaintiff establish under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1) for a strict-liability defective-design claim?
2. Does Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(a) replace Wisconsin's consumer-contemplation standard with the Restatement (Third) of Torts risk-utility test?
3. Does Wis. Stat. § 895.047(1)(b) retain the consumer-contemplation standard for determining whether a defective product is unreasonably dangerous?
4. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Murphy's statutory defective-design and common-law negligent-design claims.

Disposition

affirmed