Milanowicz v. The Raymond Corporation

In 1997, Michael Milanowicz (plaintiff) worked at a General Motors Service Parts Distribution Facility operating a fork-lift truck. The truck’s L-shaped forks had to be manually adjusted to accommodate wider or narrower loads. Milanowicz was laterally adjusting the forks on a truck manufactured by Raymond Corporation (Raymond) (defendant). The truck’s original 48-inch forks had been replaced with 60-inch forks from another manufacturer. The forks were mounted on pivots secured in place by a pin, but the pin was failing to re-engage. Milanowicz was trying to lift and shift the fork into place with his hands when the pin abruptly latched into place, severing Milanowicz’s finger. Milanowicz and his wife Lynne Milanowicz (plaintiff) brought products-liability and consortium claims against Raymond, alleging defective design, failure to warn, and inadequate instructions for use. Raymond’s experts testified that the replacement forks were a significant factor in the accident. Milanowicz’s expert, Paul Stephens, concluded that Raymond’s manual adjustment mechanism was inherently dangerous. Stephens asserted that power-operated fork-positioning mechanisms were available and widely used in 1991. Stephens also stated Raymond had failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings on the truck but proposed no alternative and cited no examples of other manufacturers using warnings. Stephens admitted that no standards required the use of powered fork positioners, he had seen no lift trucks sold with powered fork positioners, and no literature criticized the failure to use powered positioners. Stephens did not test the proposed alternative design or provide any details about how it might work or address the cost or utility of the design. Raymond moved for summary judgment.