Traylor v. Husqvarna Motor

Ronnie Traylor and his wife (the Traylors) (plaintiffs) brought a products-liability action in federal district court against Omark (defendant) after Traylor was injured by a maul. The Traylors’ action was a diversity suit and was governed by Indiana state law. A maul is a sledgehammer-type tool with one flat end similar to the end of a hammer and one sharp ax-like end. Traylor and his friend were using mauls to chop wood. Traylor’s maul became stuck in a log. Traylor’s friend used his Omark-manufactured maul to strike Traylor’s lodged maul to try to loosen it from the wood. When the Omark maul struck Traylor’s maul, a chip from the Omark maul shot into Traylor’s eye. As a result of the injury, Traylor lost his eye. The Traylors sued Omark, claiming its maul was prone to chipping because its steel was unevenly hard and its flat surface had a bevel that was too narrow. Traylor’s friend was aware his Omark maul was cracked and misshapen, but Traylor was not aware of the Omark maul’s defect. Omark raised the assumption-of-the-risk defense, interchangeably called the incurred-risk defense, alleging that Traylor knew of the risks of striking two mauls together because of warnings in the instruction sheet for Traylor’s maul. Omark also alleged Traylor should have been using safety goggles, a precaution urged by his maul’s instruction sheet. The trial judge instructed the jury to find Traylor had assumed the risk of using a defective maul if the jury found Traylor knew of the dangers of striking two mauls together or of using a maul without safety goggles. The jury instructions regarding assumption of the risk did not require the jurors to find Traylor had knowledge of the maul’s defect. The jury found in favor of Omark. The Traylors appealed.