## Facts

- Earnest M. Gray, Jr., an ironworker foreman on a construction project near Port Gibson, Mississippi, was injured when struck by the boom of a Manitowoc Model 4100W crane.
- During boom-section changes, the crane was operated in a “boom down” position roughly parallel to the ground.
- In the boom-down position, the boom obstructed the operator’s view to the left side, creating a blind spot.
- Construction-industry practice addressed such blind spots by placing signalmen on the ground to direct the operator; Gray’s crew used signalmen during the incidents.
- Gray claimed the crane was defectively designed because it lacked mirrors, closed-circuit television, or similar devices to eliminate the blind spot.
- Gray and his wife sued the manufacturer under Mississippi law for strict liability, implied warranty, and negligence (including failure to warn), alleging a design defect and inadequate warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Mississippi products-liability law to prove the crane contained a latent design hazard that made it defective and unreasonably dangerous to its ordinary users.
2. Whether the manufacturer had a duty to warn of the blind spot and breached that duty by failing to provide warnings.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held the evidence did not establish a latent hazard because the blind spot was an open and well-known characteristic of crane operation in the construction industry.
- Because the hazard was not latent, plaintiffs could not recover on strict liability, implied warranty, or negligence/failure-to-warn theories.
- The court concluded there was no breach of a duty to warn where the risk was known or obvious to the product’s ordinary, professional users.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mississippi products-liability law, recovery requires proof that the product is defective in the sense that it contains a latent hazard that renders it unreasonably dangerous.
- A product is unreasonably dangerous when it exceeds the reasonable expectations of the “ordinary consumer,” defined by the relevant class of users (here, construction-industry crane operators and supervisors).
- A manufacturer generally has no duty to warn of dangers that are open, obvious, or common knowledge to ordinary users in the relevant field.
- Evidence that additional safety features could have reduced risk does not, without a showing of a latent and unreasonable danger, establish a legally cognizable design defect under the applicable standard.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the plaintiff’s verdict because the crane’s boom-down blind spot was a known and visible operational limitation to ordinary professional users, making it neither a latent defect nor a basis for a duty to warn under Mississippi law.


Gray v. Manitowoc Co., 771 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1985)