Date: 04-24-2002

Case Style: Sara Simmons vs. Acromark, Inc., Jerry Yadon, Doug Summers, and Jeff Shriver

Case Number: 00-1625

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: In the Court of Appeals of IOWA

Plaintiff's Attorney: James Carney and George Appleby, Des Moines.

Defendant's Attorney: Roger Lathrop and Peter Thill, Davenport, and Mark Thomas, Des Moines.

Description: This is a case arising out of an industrial accident that injured plaintiff, Sara Simmons. She and the three individual defendants were co-employees of Rubbermaid Specialty Products, Inc. of Centerville, Iowa. Defendant Acromark manufactured the hot stamp press machine that plaintiff was operating when injured.

Plaintiff sued the defendants for damages flowing from her injury. The case was tried to a jury. Following completion of the evidence presentation, all defendants filed motions for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion on all claims against Acromark, excepting a claim based on a failure to warn the intended user of the machine of the danger of two persons operating the machine simultaneously. That claim was submitted to the jury. The jury returned its verdict in favor of defendant Acromark. No appeal is taken from that result.

Regarding the dependant co-employees, the court sustained their motions for directed verdict. The court held that there was not enough evidence of gross negligence by any of the defendant co-employees to permit the submission of the issue to the jury. The gross negligence standard applied by the court was deemed correct and is not challenged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals, claiming the quantum of evidence of gross negligence by each co-defendant is sufficient under the law, and that refusal to submit these issues constituted error by the trial court. On our review, we affirm.

Plaintiff was employed by Rubbermaid as an hourly production employee operating a hot stamp machine. The machine was designed to be used in the production of a farm cart. When the accident occurred, the machine was being used to produce a larger part for a tractor cart. The larger part was more difficult to keep in place while the machine stamped the part.

The machine was designed for use by one operator who used both hands to press buttons to cycle the machine. Rubbermaid trained its employees to operate it in this fashion. Attached to the machine was a fixturing that was designed to hold a tractor cart part in place to be stamped by the machine with the Rubbermaid logo. A fellow employee, not a defendant here, was assigned to work at the machine with plaintiff. He had never worked at the machine. As plaintiff was going to activate the machine, the tractor part moved. Plaintiff reached into the machine with her right hand to grab the part and reset it. At the same time, her fellow employee reached over her shoulder and pressed one of the buttons activating the machine. The machine cycled and crushed her fingers. Plaintiff testified this was the first time to her knowledge that two persons pressed the two buttons at the same time to cycle the machine.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: On the basis of these findings, the defendants’ motions for directed verdicts were sustained. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the trial court’s rulings were correct.

Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unavailable

Defendant's Experts: Unavailable

Comments: C.L.