National Verdicts

Find out about the most important recent cases nationwide selected by VerdictSearch regional editors from coast to coast. Choose a winning strategy based on the latest outcomes and trends in your practice areaPricing Options

Worker argued skylight design was not strong enough

Amount:

$33,839,000

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

Texas

Venue:

Tarrant County

Court:

Tarrant County District Court, 48th

Injury Type(s):

arm-fracture, arm;
arm-scar and/or disfigurement, arm;
leg-fracture (fracture, tibia);
leg-fracture (fracture, fibula);
chest-fracture, rib;
other-laceration; other-prosthesis; other-pins/rods/screws; other-compound fracture; other-hardware implanted; other-comminuted fracture; other-scar and/or disfigurement; amputation-leg (leg (below the knee)); surgeries/treatment-open reduction; surgeries/treatment-external fixation; pulmonary/respiratory-lung, puncture

Case Type:

Gross Negligence; Products Liability – Design Defect, Failure to Warn, Marketing Defect; Slips, Trips & Falls – Fall from Height

Case Name:

Steven L. Landers v. Gail P. Williamson, J. Don Williamson, Kimberly Williamson Darden, Annette Williamson Pomeroy, Philip Charles Williamson, Charles Donovan Williamson II, Alexander Nathan Williamson, and Gregory Shaw Williamson,
No. 048-257207-11

Date:

April 2, 2015

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

Steven Landers (Male, 26 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Mark Haney;
Griffith, Jay & Michel;
Fort Worth,
TX,
for
Steven Landers ■ Ron L. Hundley;
Puls Haney PLLC;
Dallas,
TX,
for
Steven Landers ■ Thomas M. Michel;
Griffith, Jay & Michel LLP;
Fort Worth,
TX,
for
Steven Landers ■ J. Patrick Gallagher;
Haslam & Gallagher LLP;
Fort Worth,
TX,
for
Steven Landers

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Lila Laux; Ph.D.; Labels & Warnings; Denver,
CO called by:
Mark Haney, Ron L. Hundley, Thomas M. Michel, J. Patrick Gallagher ■ Edward George; Design; St. Augustine,
FL called by:
Mark Haney, Ron L. Hundley, Thomas M. Michel, J. Patrick Gallagher ■ Jordan Davis; Prosthetics; Fort Worth,
TX called by:
Mark Haney, Ron L. Hundley, Thomas M. Michel, J. Patrick Gallagher ■ William Patterson; Economics; called by:
Mark Haney, Ron L. Hundley, Thomas M. Michel, J. Patrick Gallagher

Defendant(s):

Anchor Roofing, 

J. Don Williamson, 

Williamson-Dickie, 

Gail P. Williamson, 

Wasco Products Inc., 

Gregory Shaw Williamson, 

Philip Charles Williamson, 

Annette Williamson Pomeroy, 

Kimberly Williamson Darden, 

Alexander Nathan Williamson, 

Charles Donovan Williamson II

Defense Attorney(s):

Brett Lee Myers;
Fox Rothschild LLP;
Dallas,
TX,
for
Wasco Products Inc. ■ Andy Nikolopoulos;
Fox Rothschild LLP;
Dallas,
TX,
for
Wasco Products Inc.

Defendant Expert(s):

Helen Reynolds;
Economics;
Dallas,
TX called by:
Brett Lee Myers, Andy Nikolopoulos ■ Curtis Chambers;
OSHA Regulations;
Arlington,
TX called by:
Brett Lee Myers ■ Richard Carr;
Plastics;
Chicago,
IL called by:
Brett Lee Myers

Insurer(s):

Liberty Mutual primary for Wasco ($1 million policy limit);
AIG excess for Wasco ($10 million policy limity)

Facts:

On Sept. 18, 2010, plaintiff Steven L. Landers, 27, a maintenance man at a work-clothing factory owned by Williamson-Dickie, fell through an acrylic plastic skylight in the roof of the Fort Worth facility. He was on the roof repairing a vent fan. After he finished the repair, he squatted down to pick up his tools and lost his balance, and when he reached out to steady himself against the skylight, it broke. He fell through and landed on the concrete 35 feet below. The 4-by-4-foot skylight had been designed and manufactured by Wasco Products Inc., Wells, Maine, and installed by Anchor Roofing. This skylight was Wasco’s most popular model, the CA5252. The plastic was 1/8-inch thick. Landers sustained multiple injuries. Initially, Landers’ attorneys were not sure who the responsible parties were, and in their original petition, they sued several possible members of the Williamson family that they alleged owned the facility (Gail P. Williamson, J. Don Williamson, Kimberly Williamson Darden, Annette Williamson Pomeroy, Philip Charles Williamson, Charles Donovan Williamson II, Alexander Nathan Williamson, and Gregory Shaw Williamson). However, during the litigation, Landers’ counsel amended all of the original defendants out of the case and added Wasco, Williamson Dickie, and Anchor as defendants. The claims against Anchor settled for a confidential amount in October 2014, and those against Williamson-Dickie (a subscriber to workers’ compensation) were nonsuited early in the case. The case went to trial on the claims against Wasco only, for negligence, gross negligence, and products liability design and marketing defects. Landers alleged that the CA5252’s design was defective because it was not strong enough to support a person. In 1975, Wasco conducted testing that showed this design would not support even 100 pounds. The test further showed that, if the plastic were ¼-inch thick instead of 1/8-inch thick, it would support more than 550 pounds, plaintiff’s counsel argued. Plaintiff’s counsel argued in part that "Falls are unpredictable. Safety shouldn’t be," which was a slogan that Wasco itself had used in 2004 to market a new skylight that used stronger, thicker plastic. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that, since 1980, 16 lawsuits have been filed against Wasco based on injuries or deaths resulting from breakage of the CA5252. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Wasco should "stop making cheap, brittle skylights that kill and maim people." Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Wasco knowingly placed sales above safety and that, in his testimony, the company’s owner was unapologetic about it. Landers also alleged marketing defect. The only label on the skylight was a 1-inch by 3-inch label on one side of its four-sided frame. There were three sizes of lettering, all black, the smallest of which said "GLAZING WILL NOT SUPPORT BODY WEIGHT." The larger type was used for things like Wasco’s name and the model number. Landers’ warnings expert, a former NASA advisor known in part for being the lead expert for the plaintiff in the "McDonald’s coffee" case, opined that the label did not rise to the level of a "warning" at all. Had he known the skylight was so brittle, Landers would have treated it as an open hole by, for example, doing a lockout/tagout around it and keeping clear, he claimed. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Wasco alone was responsible for the incident. The defense denied design defect and argued that the 1975 testing was inconclusive. The defense denied marketing defect and argued that no warning or label could have prevented this accidental fall. The defense also asserted the statute of repose, which bars products liability claims from being asserted more than 15 years after the product was sold. There were no records of when Wasco sold the skylight or when Anchor installed it, but the defense argued that it was sold and installed in 1992, when the Williamson-Dickie facility was built. Landers’ design expert looked at shards of the skylight through a microscope and opined that the skylight dated from when the facility’s roof was replaced in 2003. Wasco’s plastics expert contended that there was no real way to tell how old the skylight was from looking at the shards under a microscope. Wasco also argued that Williamson-Dickie violated OSHA regulations by not treating all skylights as open holes, and that Williamson-Dickie knowingly failed to comply with OSHA regulations by not retrofitting its skylights with mesh screens for fall protection. Landers noted that Williamson-Dickie was not fined over this incident. Wasco also argued that Anchor should have notified Williamson-Dickie that this skylight would not support a person. Wasco’s counsel argued that Williamson-Dickie and Anchor alone were responsible for the incident, and that Williamson-Dickie should bear most of the responsibility. The negligence question included Landers; no one argued that he was negligent, however.

Injury:

Landers was airlifted to an emergency room. He sustained comminuted and compound fractures of his right tibia and fibula, a comminuted vertebral fracture, rib fractures, a broken left (dominant) arm, a punctured lung, and a severe laceration of the right arm. Landers fell headfirst through the skylight. After 15 feet, he hit an air-conditioner duct and sustained the rib fractures, broken arm, and punctured lung. Hitting the duct also righted him, such that, when he hit the floor, he did so feet-first, which resulted in the leg and spine fractures but was probably also what saved his life. The broken skylight cut his arm severely, and he landed partly on a large, flat tray of battery chemicals. Because his injuries were so severe, he had to remain immobile on the floor for many minutes, with his cut arm soaking in the corrosive chemicals. The result was that the scars on that arm were much worse than they otherwise would have been. The plaintiff underwent open reduction and external fixation of his leg, and he wore the fixator for about six months. Doctors performed a total of seven operations to try to save his leg before finally amputating it 3 or 4 inches below the knee in May 2011. He received two prostheses; one for day-to-day use, including work, and one for sports and similar activities. Landers’ attorneys argued that his prostheses were old-fashioned and passive, whereas newer ones had a built-in computer and gyroscope and actively helped the patient to walk with a normal gait. Doctors had to use tweezers to pick bone fragments out of his spinal cord. They ultimately performed a five-level spinal fusion, with pedicle screws and two 10-inch rods. He was left with a 12-inch surgical scar on his back. His treating surgeon opined that, within reasonable medical probability, Landers would need surgery on the adjacent vertebrae, because the fusion would eventually place a strain on them. The initial hospitalization lasted a little more than two weeks, but the plaintiff was bedridden for six or seven months, during which his wife and mother took care of him. His wife did not testify, but his aunt and mother did. Landers and his wife had four children. Landers returned to work after 14 months. He became a supervisor and earned more than before, but he argued that, because of his injuries, the work would become too much for him sooner or later. The facility covered about 500,000 square feet, which his attorneys argued was a big area for someone with a prosthetic leg to cover. The paid or incurred medical bills were stipulated at $233,867.76 (essentially the medical component of the workers’ compensation lien). The jury was therefore not asked about past medical bills. Landers also sought $78,000 for past lost earning capacity and $700,000 for future lost earning capacity. For noneconomic damages, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to multiply a per-diem amount by the probable number of days left in Landers’ life. For each element, his attorneys gave the jury a calculation based on $100 a day, $500 a day, or $1,000 a day, but said that the jury should pick whatever per-diem it felt was appropriate. The elements were past and future physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement. He sought $2,737,500 in future medical bills, mostly for back surgery and replacement prostheses. He sought the more modern prostheses, which cost about $80,000 and last three to five years. Prostheses like the ones he had at trial cost about $14,000 and last about three years. He also sought punitive damages, and the trial was bifurcated. The defense argued that, if the jury was going to award the cost of replacement prosthetics, they should be like the ones he had at trial, not the more modern ones.

Result:

The jury found that there was both a design defect and a marketing defect in the skylight. The jury also found negligence by Wasco, Williamson-Dickie, and Anchor, and placed comparative responsibility of 45 percent on Wasco, 45 percent on Williamson-Dickie, and 10 percent on Anchor. The jury awarded Landers $33,839,000. That amount plus the stipulated medical bills is $34,072,867.76, of which 45 percent is $15,332,790.49. The jury found that Wasco sold the skylight in question on or before Dec. 31, 1992. The jury did not answer the question on gross negligence. A "yes" had to be unanimous, and a "no" had to be at least 10 to 2.

Steven Landers: $2,737,500 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost; $100,000 Personal Injury: Past Physical Impairment; $600,000 Personal Injury: Future Physical Impairment; $8,218,500 Personal Injury: Past Disfigurement; $1,656,000 Personal Injury: Future Disfigurement; $700,000 Personal Injury: future lost earning capacity; $1,656,000 Personal Injury: past mental anguish; $1,656,000 Personal Injury: past physical pain; $8,218,500 Personal Injury: future mental anguish; $8,218,500 Personal Injury: future physical pain; $78,000 Personal Injury: past lost earning capacity

Actual Award:

$15,332,790.49

Trial Information:

Judge:

David Evans

Demand:

$2,500,000

Offer:

$150,000

Trial Length:

2
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

1
 days

Jury Vote:

10-2

Jury Composition:

3 male/ 8 female; 9 white/ 3 black; 2 electricians

Post Trial:

Wasco plans to argue that the statute of repose bars any recovery. Plaintiff’s counsel will argue that the law of Maine applies; Maine does not have a statute of repose.

Editor’s Comment:

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and Wasco’s counsel.