Loading
Manufacturing
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Crane, Mechanical Engineering, Human Factors, Labels And Warnings, Product Liability
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Fifth Circuit
A tandem lifting operation at a Mississippi shipyard led to the federal product liability dispute in Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC. On June 25, 2014, certified crane operator John Robert Williams Jr. was operating a Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane at the VT Halter Marine shipyard in Pascagoula. Three cranes were being used to move the bow section of a ship. After one crane disconnected as planned, the two remaining cranes began separating. Williams's crane was pulled forward and started to tip. Large steel counterweights at the rear moved toward the operator cab, and at least one struck the cab before Williams was ejected approximately eight feet onto concrete. He survived the accident, but his physical and mental capacities were permanently impaired.
Wanda Williams brought suit individually and as conservator for her husband in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The litigation included allegations involving the crane's design, warnings, negligence, and loss of consortium. The court dismissed the design-defect claims before trial, while separate warning claims involving tandem lifting and the crane's counterweights went to the jury. Jurors found Manitowoc liable on the counterweight warning claim but not on the tandem-lift warning claim. They assessed $8.5 million in total damages and assigned 40 percent of the fault to Manitowoc, resulting in a $3.4 million judgment against the company. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2018.
John Williams was operating a Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane during a multi-crane lift at the VT Halter Marine shipyard. Three cranes initially took part in moving the bow section of a ship, and one later disconnected according to plan. The two remaining cranes then began separating, causing Williams's crane to be pulled forward. As the crawler crane tipped, rear counterweights moved toward the operator cab, and at least one struck it. Williams was ejected from the cab and fell approximately eight feet onto concrete.
Wanda Williams filed suit on behalf of John Williams and herself in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The initial action named several Manitowoc entities as well as Cairo Marine Service, Inc. The allegations addressed the Model 16000's design and warnings, the circumstances surrounding the tandem lift, and Williams's resulting injuries. Wanda Williams also asserted a claim for loss of consortium.
The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming Manitowoc Cranes, LLC as the only remaining defendant. Claims continued under the Mississippi Products Liability Act and related legal theories. At that point, the allegations included defective design, inadequate warnings, negligence, and loss of consortium. The parties then continued with discovery, expert disclosures, and pretrial motions.
Manitowoc designated Dr. John Schneider to address the reasonable value of Williams's past and future medical expenses. His analysis considered medical cost information and estimates associated with life care plans prepared by Dr. Randall Thomas, who had been identified by the plaintiff as a life care expert. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to exclude Schneider's proposed opinions. Schneider therefore did not present his health economics testimony to the jury.
Before trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Manitowoc and dismissed the design-defect claims with prejudice. The remaining dispute included defective-warning and loss-of-consortium claims. Two warning theories remained separate: one dealt with tandem lifting, while the other concerned the movement of the Model 16000's counterweights toward the operator cab during a tip-over. The case proceeded to trial on those remaining issues.
At trial, the parties disputed whether the warnings supplied with the Model 16000 adequately described the hazards alleged by Williams. One issue concerned whether crane operators had been told that counterweights could move toward the cab if the crane tipped. Williams offered Dr. William Singhose as an expert in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. He addressed the counterweight condition and presented an alternative warning identifying the danger that counterweights could fall toward and strike the operator cab during a tip-over.
The jury found that the Model 16000 lacked adequate warnings or instructions concerning the danger posed by its counterweights during a tip-over. Jurors did not reach the same conclusion on the separate tandem-lift allegation and found for Manitowoc on that claim. The jury assessed $7 million in economic damages and $1.5 million in noneconomic damages, including loss of consortium. Fault was divided among VT Halter Marine at 50 percent, Manitowoc at 40 percent, and Williams at 10 percent.
The district court applied the jury's allocation of responsibility when entering judgment. Manitowoc's portion consisted of $2.8 million in economic damages and $600,000 in noneconomic damages. The resulting judgment totaled $3.4 million plus post-judgment interest. The amount represented Manitowoc's 40 percent share of the $8.5 million damages assessment.
After its post-trial motions were unsuccessful, Manitowoc appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Its arguments addressed the evidence supporting the failure-to-warn verdict, causation, allegations concerning the operation of the crane, and several evidentiary rulings. Manitowoc also challenged the district court's decision to allow Dr. Singhose to testify about warnings. Evidence involving other Manitowoc crane accidents was another issue presented during the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court determined that the trial evidence allowed the jury to find that Manitowoc had not adequately warned operators about the danger of the counterweights moving toward the cab during a tip-over. It also upheld the ruling that permitted Dr. Singhose to testify about warnings. The $3.4 million judgment against Manitowoc remained in place following the appellate decision.
Court:
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Case Name:
Wanda Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, L.L.C
A Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane tipped during a tandem lift, ejecting operator John Williams and causing permanent physical and cognitive injuries.
The case ultimately focused on failure-to-warn claims involving tandem lifting and the danger of counterweights moving toward the operator cab during a tip-over.
The jury found Manitowoc liable on the counterweight warning claim but not on the tandem-lift warning claim.
Jurors assessed $8.5 million in damages and assigned 40 percent of the fault to Manitowoc, resulting in a $3.4 million judgment.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2018, including the admission of expert testimony concerning the counterweight warning.
Crane Operator
Heavy Equipment
Equipment Failure
Machine Safety
Safety Warnings
Mechanical Failure
Industrial Accidents
Product Safety
A tandem lifting operation at a Mississippi shipyard led to the federal product liability dispute in Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC. On June 25, 2014, certified crane operator John Robert Williams Jr. was operating a Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane at the VT Halter Marine shipyard in Pascagoula. Three cranes were being used to move the bow section of a ship. After one crane disconnected as planned, the two remaining cranes began separating. Williams's crane was pulled forward and started to tip. Large steel counterweights at the rear moved toward the operator cab, and at least one struck the cab before Williams was ejected approximately eight feet onto concrete. He survived the accident, but his physical and mental capacities were permanently impaired.
Wanda Williams brought suit individually and as conservator for her husband in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The litigation included allegations involving the crane's design, warnings, negligence, and loss of consortium. The court dismissed the design-defect claims before trial, while separate warning claims involving tandem lifting and the crane's counterweights went to the jury. Jurors found Manitowoc liable on the counterweight warning claim but not on the tandem-lift warning claim. They assessed $8.5 million in total damages and assigned 40 percent of the fault to Manitowoc, resulting in a $3.4 million judgment against the company. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2018.
John Williams was operating a Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane during a multi-crane lift at the VT Halter Marine shipyard. Three cranes initially took part in moving the bow section of a ship, and one later disconnected according to plan. The two remaining cranes then began separating, causing Williams's crane to be pulled forward. As the crawler crane tipped, rear counterweights moved toward the operator cab, and at least one struck it. Williams was ejected from the cab and fell approximately eight feet onto concrete.
Wanda Williams filed suit on behalf of John Williams and herself in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The initial action named several Manitowoc entities as well as Cairo Marine Service, Inc. The allegations addressed the Model 16000's design and warnings, the circumstances surrounding the tandem lift, and Williams's resulting injuries. Wanda Williams also asserted a claim for loss of consortium.
The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming Manitowoc Cranes, LLC as the only remaining defendant. Claims continued under the Mississippi Products Liability Act and related legal theories. At that point, the allegations included defective design, inadequate warnings, negligence, and loss of consortium. The parties then continued with discovery, expert disclosures, and pretrial motions.
Manitowoc designated Dr. John Schneider to address the reasonable value of Williams's past and future medical expenses. His analysis considered medical cost information and estimates associated with life care plans prepared by Dr. Randall Thomas, who had been identified by the plaintiff as a life care expert. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to exclude Schneider's proposed opinions. Schneider therefore did not present his health economics testimony to the jury.
Before trial, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Manitowoc and dismissed the design-defect claims with prejudice. The remaining dispute included defective-warning and loss-of-consortium claims. Two warning theories remained separate: one dealt with tandem lifting, while the other concerned the movement of the Model 16000's counterweights toward the operator cab during a tip-over. The case proceeded to trial on those remaining issues.
At trial, the parties disputed whether the warnings supplied with the Model 16000 adequately described the hazards alleged by Williams. One issue concerned whether crane operators had been told that counterweights could move toward the cab if the crane tipped. Williams offered Dr. William Singhose as an expert in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. He addressed the counterweight condition and presented an alternative warning identifying the danger that counterweights could fall toward and strike the operator cab during a tip-over.
The jury found that the Model 16000 lacked adequate warnings or instructions concerning the danger posed by its counterweights during a tip-over. Jurors did not reach the same conclusion on the separate tandem-lift allegation and found for Manitowoc on that claim. The jury assessed $7 million in economic damages and $1.5 million in noneconomic damages, including loss of consortium. Fault was divided among VT Halter Marine at 50 percent, Manitowoc at 40 percent, and Williams at 10 percent.
The district court applied the jury's allocation of responsibility when entering judgment. Manitowoc's portion consisted of $2.8 million in economic damages and $600,000 in noneconomic damages. The resulting judgment totaled $3.4 million plus post-judgment interest. The amount represented Manitowoc's 40 percent share of the $8.5 million damages assessment.
After its post-trial motions were unsuccessful, Manitowoc appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Its arguments addressed the evidence supporting the failure-to-warn verdict, causation, allegations concerning the operation of the crane, and several evidentiary rulings. Manitowoc also challenged the district court's decision to allow Dr. Singhose to testify about warnings. Evidence involving other Manitowoc crane accidents was another issue presented during the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court determined that the trial evidence allowed the jury to find that Manitowoc had not adequately warned operators about the danger of the counterweights moving toward the cab during a tip-over. It also upheld the ruling that permitted Dr. Singhose to testify about warnings. The $3.4 million judgment against Manitowoc remained in place following the appellate decision.
Mechanical Engineering, Human Factors, and Warnings Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Williams offered Dr. William Singhose as an expert in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. His background included work involving cranes and crane controls, hazard analysis, human-machine interaction, and safety warnings. Singhose addressed the movement of the Model 16000's counterweights during a tip-over and presented an alternative warning identifying the danger that counterweights could fall toward and strike the operator cab. Manitowoc challenged his qualifications regarding warnings, but the district court permitted his testimony and the Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling.
Life Care Planning Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Dr. Randall Thomas was identified as the plaintiff's life care expert. He prepared two life care plan options concerning Williams's anticipated future medical care and related expenses. Those plans were also used in the analysis prepared by Manitowoc's health economics expert.
Heavy Equipment Expert Witness
A heavy equipment expert could examine the operation, configuration, and safety of the Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane involved in the accident. The analysis could include crane operating procedures, equipment capacity, counterweight configuration, manufacturer instructions, site conditions, maintenance records, and the manner in which the crane was used during the tandem lift. This type of expert could also address whether equipment operation and safety practices were consistent with applicable manufacturer guidance and industry standards.
Cranes and Hoists Expert Witness
A cranes and hoists expert could evaluate the lifting operation, crane setup, counterweight system, operating conditions, and events leading to the Model 16000 tip-over. The review could include lift planning, tandem-lift procedures, load conditions, crane stability, operator controls, counterweight behavior, and equipment instructions or warnings. This type of analysis could address the technical circumstances surrounding the crane accident and the competing claims concerning crane operation and safety.
Williams Presented Two Separate Warning Theories
The warning claims involving the Model 16000 were not treated as one broad allegation about crane safety. Williams alleged that the warnings were inadequate in connection with tandem lifting and separately alleged that Manitowoc failed to provide sufficient information about the counterweights during a tip-over. The jury rejected the tandem-lift warning claim. Liability against Manitowoc rested on the separate counterweight warning theory.
The Model 16000 Used 18,000-Pound Counterweights
The Model 16000 used large steel counterweights as part of its lifting configuration. Individual counterweights discussed during the case weighed approximately 18,000 pounds. When Williams's crane began to tip, counterweights moved from their normal position toward the operator cab. At least one reached and struck the cab before Williams was ejected.
The Parties Disputed the Conditions Under Which the Crane Was Operated
Manitowoc raised several arguments concerning the crane's operation at the time of the accident. The record included disputes about loading conditions, the surface or slope on which the crane was being used, operational aids, and Williams's conduct during the lift. The jury did not assign full responsibility to Manitowoc or Williams. Instead, it apportioned responsibility among Manitowoc, Williams, and VT Halter Marine.
Evidence From Other Crane Accidents Was Challenged on Appeal
The trial proceedings included evidence concerning other Manitowoc crane accidents involving counterweights and tip-over conditions. Manitowoc challenged portions of that evidence before the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court considered whether the other incidents were sufficiently similar for the purposes for which they had been introduced. It ultimately upheld the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings.
The Jury's Damages Figure and the Final Judgment Were Different Amounts
Jurors assessed $7 million in economic damages and $1.5 million in noneconomic damages, bringing the total to $8.5 million. They then assigned 50 percent of the fault to VT Halter Marine, 40 percent to Manitowoc, and 10 percent to Williams. The district court applied Manitowoc's percentage when calculating the amount owed by the company. That calculation produced the $3.4 million judgment later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
The claims against Manitowoc changed considerably between the filing of the lawsuit and the October 2016 trial. The design-defect allegations were dismissed before the jury heard the case, leaving separate warning theories concerning tandem lifting and counterweight movement. Jurors found for Manitowoc on the tandem-lift claim but determined that the warnings concerning the counterweights were inadequate. Their verdict assigned 40 percent of the fault to Manitowoc and led to a $3.4 million judgment. Manitowoc continued to contest the verdict through post-trial motions and an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, where the proceedings addressed the warning evidence, causation, other crane accidents, and the admission of Dr. Singhose's testimony. On August 3, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, leaving the judgment unchanged.
What caused the crane to begin tipping?
The accident developed during a tandem lifting operation involving the bow section of a ship. After one of the three cranes disconnected, the two cranes that remained in the operation began separating. The other crane pulled Williams's Model 16000 forward, and his crane began to tip. The litigation also included disputes concerning operating conditions and the manner in which the crane was being used.
What warning did the jury find inadequate?
The successful warning claim concerned the danger created when the Model 16000's counterweights moved toward the operator cab during a tip-over. The jury found that the crane lacked adequate warnings or instructions concerning that condition. The jury separately considered the warnings associated with tandem lifting and found for Manitowoc on that allegation.
What role did Dr. William Singhose have in the case?
Dr. William Singhose testified for the plaintiffs in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. His testimony addressed the counterweight hazard and an alternative warning that would have described what could occur during a tip-over. Manitowoc challenged his qualifications to give warnings testimony. Both the district court's ruling and the Fifth Circuit's later decision allowed that testimony to stand.
How did the jury divide responsibility for the accident?
The jury assigned 50 percent of the fault to VT Halter Marine, 40 percent to Manitowoc, and 10 percent to John Williams. That allocation was applied to the damages assessed at trial. Manitowoc's 40 percent share resulted in a judgment of $3.4 million.
How did Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes end?
Mechanical Engineering, Human Factors, and Warnings Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Williams offered Dr. William Singhose as an expert in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. His background included work involving cranes and crane controls, hazard analysis, human-machine interaction, and safety warnings. Singhose addressed the movement of the Model 16000's counterweights during a tip-over and presented an alternative warning identifying the danger that counterweights could fall toward and strike the operator cab. Manitowoc challenged his qualifications regarding warnings, but the district court permitted his testimony and the Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling.
Life Care Planning Expert Witness - Plaintiff
Dr. Randall Thomas was identified as the plaintiff's life care expert. He prepared two life care plan options concerning Williams's anticipated future medical care and related expenses. Those plans were also used in the analysis prepared by Manitowoc's health economics expert.
Heavy Equipment Expert Witness
A heavy equipment expert could examine the operation, configuration, and safety of the Manitowoc Model 16000 crawler crane involved in the accident. The analysis could include crane operating procedures, equipment capacity, counterweight configuration, manufacturer instructions, site conditions, maintenance records, and the manner in which the crane was used during the tandem lift. This type of expert could also address whether equipment operation and safety practices were consistent with applicable manufacturer guidance and industry standards.
Cranes and Hoists Expert Witness
A cranes and hoists expert could evaluate the lifting operation, crane setup, counterweight system, operating conditions, and events leading to the Model 16000 tip-over. The review could include lift planning, tandem-lift procedures, load conditions, crane stability, operator controls, counterweight behavior, and equipment instructions or warnings. This type of analysis could address the technical circumstances surrounding the crane accident and the competing claims concerning crane operation and safety.
Williams Presented Two Separate Warning Theories
The warning claims involving the Model 16000 were not treated as one broad allegation about crane safety. Williams alleged that the warnings were inadequate in connection with tandem lifting and separately alleged that Manitowoc failed to provide sufficient information about the counterweights during a tip-over. The jury rejected the tandem-lift warning claim. Liability against Manitowoc rested on the separate counterweight warning theory.
The Model 16000 Used 18,000-Pound Counterweights
The Model 16000 used large steel counterweights as part of its lifting configuration. Individual counterweights discussed during the case weighed approximately 18,000 pounds. When Williams's crane began to tip, counterweights moved from their normal position toward the operator cab. At least one reached and struck the cab before Williams was ejected.
The Parties Disputed the Conditions Under Which the Crane Was Operated
Manitowoc raised several arguments concerning the crane's operation at the time of the accident. The record included disputes about loading conditions, the surface or slope on which the crane was being used, operational aids, and Williams's conduct during the lift. The jury did not assign full responsibility to Manitowoc or Williams. Instead, it apportioned responsibility among Manitowoc, Williams, and VT Halter Marine.
Evidence From Other Crane Accidents Was Challenged on Appeal
The trial proceedings included evidence concerning other Manitowoc crane accidents involving counterweights and tip-over conditions. Manitowoc challenged portions of that evidence before the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court considered whether the other incidents were sufficiently similar for the purposes for which they had been introduced. It ultimately upheld the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings.
The Jury's Damages Figure and the Final Judgment Were Different Amounts
Jurors assessed $7 million in economic damages and $1.5 million in noneconomic damages, bringing the total to $8.5 million. They then assigned 50 percent of the fault to VT Halter Marine, 40 percent to Manitowoc, and 10 percent to Williams. The district court applied Manitowoc's percentage when calculating the amount owed by the company. That calculation produced the $3.4 million judgment later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.
The claims against Manitowoc changed considerably between the filing of the lawsuit and the October 2016 trial. The design-defect allegations were dismissed before the jury heard the case, leaving separate warning theories concerning tandem lifting and counterweight movement. Jurors found for Manitowoc on the tandem-lift claim but determined that the warnings concerning the counterweights were inadequate. Their verdict assigned 40 percent of the fault to Manitowoc and led to a $3.4 million judgment. Manitowoc continued to contest the verdict through post-trial motions and an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, where the proceedings addressed the warning evidence, causation, other crane accidents, and the admission of Dr. Singhose's testimony. On August 3, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, leaving the judgment unchanged.
What caused the crane to begin tipping?
The accident developed during a tandem lifting operation involving the bow section of a ship. After one of the three cranes disconnected, the two cranes that remained in the operation began separating. The other crane pulled Williams's Model 16000 forward, and his crane began to tip. The litigation also included disputes concerning operating conditions and the manner in which the crane was being used.
What warning did the jury find inadequate?
The successful warning claim concerned the danger created when the Model 16000's counterweights moved toward the operator cab during a tip-over. The jury found that the crane lacked adequate warnings or instructions concerning that condition. The jury separately considered the warnings associated with tandem lifting and found for Manitowoc on that allegation.
What role did Dr. William Singhose have in the case?
Dr. William Singhose testified for the plaintiffs in mechanical engineering, human factors, and warnings. His testimony addressed the counterweight hazard and an alternative warning that would have described what could occur during a tip-over. Manitowoc challenged his qualifications to give warnings testimony. Both the district court's ruling and the Fifth Circuit's later decision allowed that testimony to stand.
How did the jury divide responsibility for the accident?
The jury assigned 50 percent of the fault to VT Halter Marine, 40 percent to Manitowoc, and 10 percent to John Williams. That allocation was applied to the damages assessed at trial. Manitowoc's 40 percent share resulted in a judgment of $3.4 million.
How did Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes end?
Manitowoc appealed after the district court entered judgment and rejected its post-trial challenges. The company raised arguments concerning liability, causation, expert testimony, and other evidence admitted during the proceedings. On August 3, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court. The $3.4 million judgment remained in place after the appeal.
Crane Operator
Heavy Equipment
Equipment Failure
Machine Safety
Safety Warnings
Mechanical Failure
Industrial Accidents
Product Safety
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing
Manitowoc appealed after the district court entered judgment and rejected its post-trial challenges. The company raised arguments concerning liability, causation, expert testimony, and other evidence admitted during the proceedings. On August 3, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court. The $3.4 million judgment remained in place after the appeal.