Smith v. Louisville Ladder Co.

Rodger Smith (plaintiff) worked for Longview Cable Company (Longview) as a technician when he was injured while using an extension ladder and hook assembly that Longview had purchased from Louisville Ladder Co. (defendant). Smith was making routine repairs that required resting the ladder against a strand of cable 20 feet above the ground. The ladder base was on the ground, and Smith climbed the ladder without securing it to a stationary object. Before Smith could secure himself to the ladder, the ladder slid down the cable, and one of the hooks detached from the cable. The ladder twisted and came to an abrupt halt. Smith fell to the ground and was injured. At trial, Smith argued that the ladder was defective because the hook could come off the cable during a slide. Smith’s expert, Dr. Packman, testified that when the hook disengaged from the cable, the ladder twisted more violently than if it had remained attached to the cable, which contributed to Smith’s fall. Packman stated that if the hook had a latching device encircling the cable, the hook would not have disengaged from the cable. Smith relied completely on Packman’s evidence, including videotaped experiments, to show that the proposed design was safer. However, Packman could not say that his design would prevent falls; his experiments showed only that his design would produce a less severe jerk on the ladder following a slide. Packman acknowledged that his design was not ready for manufacture as it could cause balance issues. Packman admitted that he did not conduct a risk-benefit analysis of his proposed design. A jury awarded Smith $1,487,500, accounting for his 15 percent contributory negligence. The district court entered judgment on the verdict. On appeal, Louisville argued that Smith did not establish that Dr. Packman’s proposed design was a safer alternative design under Texas law.