Legal Cases to help define
Piggly Wiggly
June 18, 2012

Legal Cases to help define
Piggly Wiggly
Part I: When looking at the case of Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 828 N.E.2d 1128 (Ill. 2005) we are talking about a products liability case that went all the way to the Illinoi’s Supreme Court. On the way to the supreme court the case was looked at in several different lights of the law like Negligence of a defective design, strict liability, fore seeable harm, failure to warn, repose beyond limitations, and comparative negligence to just name a few. In this case the plaintiff Glen Blue, injured himself while working on a heavy-duty trash compactor, stuck his foot into the compactor to free up the caught box, in turn got caught, pulled into the compactor as the ram took hold of the box. The ram subsequently hit Blue “three times, breaking his pelvis, leg and foot. (Twerski, A. D., 2006). In the Blue case the expert witness stated in court that several safety features that were technologically available at the time the compactor was manufactured that would have averted plaintiff’s injury, and he opined that the compactor was negligently designed which would have made the product safer to use. However strict liability count was dismissed because the case was filed beyond the applicable limitations period and the statute of repose, and returned the verdict of the plaintiff being 32% Negligent. (Twerski, A. D., 2006). Thereafter the jury sided with the defendant due to a special interrogatory that was the risk of injury by sticking a foot over or through a gate into a moving compactor open and obvious, which the jury affirmed. When appealed the intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court. In turn the appellate court held that the fact that a danger was open and obvious did not preclude a finding that the compactor was negligently designed. It also found that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the compactor failed to meet risk-utility standards. The case seemed to call for nothing more than a routine affirmance by the Illinois Supreme Court of the intermediate appellate court decision reinstating the plaintiff’s verdict. The Illinois Supreme Court did, in fact, affirm and reinstate the plaintiff’s verdict, but in doing so wrote an opinion that, in many ways, is mystifying. (Twerski, A. D., 2006). The Supreme court did affirm in the plaintiff’s favor, but under the questions of is this more a negligence claim than a strict liability claim? Under that did it lie in the fault concept. The court also was concerned with Products Liability Restatement test requiring a comparison between an alternative design and the product design that caused the injury, undertaken from the viewpoint of a reasonable person, is the identical test utilized in deciding whether a defendant was negligent. (Twerski, A. D., 2006). In affirming the plaintiff the court took on a role of that negligent design of products is not risk-utility based but requires proof that a defendant departed from industry custom, and Illinois courts and other courts have said that negligence focuses on the conduct of the specific manufacturer and might absolve the manufacturer of liability if it acted reasonably according to its own evaluation of risk, whereas strict liability looks to the risk information available to the industry. The Illinois Supreme court has made it more difficult in that state to mount a negligence claim in products liability, further plaintiffs bring suit under both theories and a jury finds that the product is not defective but that the defendant was negligent. The law has become too complicated for this state in products liability, and a lot of the times such verdicts are inconsistent and require a retrial.
Part II. For the purpose of the Piggly Wiggly case, we look at a chain of retail stores whom decided to start making bacon pieces as part of its manufacturing, and retail sales. Piggly Wiggly obtained funding for large industrial bacon presses. In October of 1985 they produced the squealer I. The Squealer I was sold mainly to supermarket meat departments to process and cut bacon, ham, and misc. pork products. With huge success the manufactured the Squealer II in 1990 sold again mainly to supermarket meat departments, and industrial meat suppliers. While partnered with its corporate partner Piggly Wiggly was the principle manufacturer and design maker of the bacon press. The partner to Piggly Wiggly is Meat Slicer Unlimited whom was responsible for the financing, management, facilities, and investments. On June 1, 1995 Sammy Hoagge was injured on the job in the meat department at the Lindy’s supermarket losing his left arm while operating the squealer. Mr. Hoagge also suffers from PTSD, in the hospital for 35 days, receives ongoing treatment for the remainder of his left limb, and outpatient therapy. Upon returning to work Mr. Hoagge was moved to the florist department, then the bakery which did not work out, eventually leading to his leaving Lindy’s on December 4, 1996 now currently divorced, with two daughters, and unemployed. Piggly’s in house engineer examined the Squealer I, and found that the Squealer I is fully functional, operational, with all guards in place with the exception of the guard displaying the caution sign. No information is available if the caution sign was ever intact, or applied to the guard. Mr. Hoagge did however give a statement that he did use the guards because it more efficient, and his supervisor (Lonnie Smith) knew of this and gave verbal consent to it three times, in which two occasions Sammy was encouraged to keep up the good work, he had been the most efficient processor in 12 years at Lindy’s. Per your request I have found these two cases in which will help our case against Piggly Wiggly on behalf of our client Mr. Hoagge.
Yassin by Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 502 N.E.2d 315
In this matter the plaintiff placed her hand in meat tenderizer brought action against grocery store, for strict liability, the jury did return a verdict of negligence against Mizyed-Yassin Corporation, awarding plaintiff $300,000 in compensatory damages. This could apply for strict liability in our claim, because the warning label was never properly put into place, to keep the safe work environment. Further the supervisor (Lonnie) encouraged the behavior.
Mettinger v. W.W. Lowensten, Inc., 678 A.2d 1115 is a claim where an employee fell into an unguarded meat slicer, and recovered $350,000 in damages because the guard was not properly in place, and Lowensten sold the slicing machine to Quick-Check in 1980, it did not provide labels, manuals or placards to adequately warn a user of the danger, and adequate warnings were not supplied during the period between the sale and plaintiff's injury. This again will be good for our case, we can show similar substantial theory of liability, causation, and show it is a product defect from both the manufacture, and the store for not properly maintaining a safe work place. With both of these cases I feel we have a strong case, and can use them to show the liability, and causation. Further I feel both the manufacturer, and store are liable for strict liability, and Negligence with clear causation.

References
Mettinger v. W.W. Lowensten, Inc., 678 A.2d 1115 retrieved June 18, 2012 form Westlaw
Twerski, A. D., (2006). CHASING THE ILLUSORY POT OF GOLDAT THE END OF THE
RAINBOW: NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY IN
DESIGN DEFECT LITIGATION. Retrieved on June 18,2012 from Westlaw
Yassin by Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 502 N.E.2d 315