Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co.

Cepeda (plaintiff) was a workman whose job required him to use a pelletizing machine manufactured by Cumberland Engineering Co. (the manufacturer) (defendant) and sold to Cepeda’s employer in 1956. In 1968 Cepeda lost four fingers while operating the machine. The machine had a bolted guard that would have prevented the accident, but the guard had to be removed frequently during the machine’s operation. The guard was removed the day of Cepeda’s accident. An interlock mechanism was widely available and would have prevented the machine from operating without its safety guard. Cepeda argued that the pelletizing machine was defectively designed. The manufacturer argued that Cepeda’s use of the machine absent the bolted guard constituted contributory negligence and barred recovery. Also, the manufacturer argued that the pelletizing machine was not defectively designed, because it met general safety standards the year it was sold to Cepeda’s employer. The jury awarded Cepeda damages, determining the machine was defectively designed. The jury also found that, though Cepeda was also negligent in operating the machine with the safety guard off, Cepeda’s contributory negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The appellate court overturned the verdict and found the pelletizing machine was not defectively designed as a matter of law because Cepeda did not operate the machine with its safety guard. Cepeda appealed to the state supreme court.