## Facts

- Comet Corporation purchased a press brake manufactured by Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Corporation.
- The press was designed with two activation options: (1) a two-button hand control requiring both hands, and (2) a foot treadle without the same safeguarding effect.
- After purchase, Comet modified the press so it could be operated with a single hand button and did not install point-of-operation guards.
- Steve Anderson, a Comet employee, used the modified one-button setup; while clearing metal debris with one hand, he accidentally activated the press and it crushed his hand.
- Before the injury, state safety inspectors cited the machine as unsafe due to the lack of point-of-operation guarding and warned Comet about the hazard.
- Dreis provided warnings on the machine and in the manual about point-of-operation dangers and the need for guarding, and asserted that the purchaser/employer was responsible for selecting and installing guards.

## Issues

1. Whether Anderson’s personal-injury breach of warranty claims against the manufacturer were barred for lack of contractual privity.
2. Whether Dreis’s warnings regarding point-of-operation hazards and guarding were inadequate as a matter of law.
3. Whether the press could be found defectively designed due to the absence of point-of-operation guarding or a design that permitted operation without such guarding.
4. Whether Comet’s post-sale modification and failure to guard was the sole proximate cause (a superseding cause) relieving the manufacturer of liability.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment dismissing the breach of warranty claims for lack of privity.
- Affirmed summary judgment dismissing the failure-to-warn claims because the warnings were adequate as a matter of law.
- Reversed summary judgment on design defect and proximate cause and remanded for trial.
- Held that whether Comet’s conduct was a superseding cause was not resolvable as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Washington law applied by the court, contractual privity may be required to maintain personal-injury breach of warranty claims against a remote manufacturer.
- Warning claims fail on summary judgment when the manufacturer’s warnings sufficiently communicate the nature of the hazard and the need for protective measures.
- A manufacturer’s duty to design reasonably safe machinery may include safety features addressing foreseeable point-of-operation hazards; that responsibility is not necessarily avoided by placing guard-selection responsibility on the purchaser.
- A third party’s negligence or modification is not a superseding cause as a matter of law when it is a foreseeable response to risks created by the product’s design.
- When reasonable minds could differ on whether a design was reasonably safe and whether it proximately caused the injury, those questions go to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court left intact the dismissal of Anderson’s warranty and warning theories, but held that a jury must decide whether the press was defectively designed in light of foreseeable unguarded operation and whether the employer’s modification and failure to guard broke the causal chain or instead fell within the risks created by the design.


Anderson v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Corp., 48 Wash. App. 432, 739 P.2d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)