## Facts

- Mark Lambert worked for Glenvale Products Co. as a trim-press operator.
- Will Brothers Company, Inc. manufactured a hydraulic trim press used to fabricate and trim die castings.
- The press operated by depressing two palm-control buttons mounted on the front of a stationary platform; separate controls started and stopped the motor, and a red light indicated the electrical power system was on.
- Will Brothers sold the press in May 1965 to the Michigan Division of Hoover Ballbearing Co., the parent company of Lambert’s employer.
- When sold, the press did not have ring guards around the palm-control buttons.
- Lambert’s employer later added ring guards and also added a safety jack intended to prevent operation when engaged.
- At the time Lambert was hurt, the ring guard around the right palm-control button was missing, and the added safety jack was not working.
- Lambert had worked for several months on mechanical trim presses and received about two weeks of training before being assigned to change dies; the injury occurred on his first day working on a hydraulic press.
- Lambert was injured while changing a die on the press when a worktable penetrated the ring guard around the left palm-control button, triggering a cycle.
- The safety jack failed to prevent operation, the upper platen descended unexpectedly, and Lambert’s right hand was crushed.
- Lambert presented testimony that the press was defectively designed, including claims that it lacked adequate guarding around the palm buttons and that the safety jack and power-button system were improperly designed.
- The case was tried to a jury on negligence and strict liability theories under Arkansas law, and the jury returned a general verdict for Will Brothers.
- The trial court instructed the jury on assumption of risk; Lambert appealed, arguing the assumption-of-risk instruction lacked evidentiary support (and also challenged an instruction on independent intervening cause).

## Issues

1. Whether, under Arkansas law, the evidence supported submitting assumption of risk to the jury in a products-liability/negligence case where the plaintiff was injured by an allegedly defective hydraulic trim press.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit held the district court erred by instructing the jury on assumption of risk because the record did not support a finding that Lambert knew of, appreciated, and voluntarily encountered the specific danger that caused his injury.
- Because the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant, the appellate court could not determine whether the verdict rested on the unsupported assumption-of-risk theory; the instructional error was therefore prejudicial.
- The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
- Having found reversible error on assumption of risk, the court did not find it necessary to decide whether the independent-intervening-cause instruction also required reversal, though it noted limits on when later conduct breaks causation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Arkansas law, assumption of risk requires proof that the plaintiff actually knew of and appreciated the specific danger that produced the injury and voluntarily chose to face that danger; general awareness that machinery can be dangerous is not enough.
- Assumption of risk is not established merely by evidence that the plaintiff acted carelessly or failed to follow safer procedures; the focus is the plaintiff’s subjective knowledge and acceptance of the particular hazard.
- When a trial court submits an unsupported instruction that provides a complete defense to liability and the jury returns a general verdict, reversal is required if the reviewing court cannot tell whether the verdict depended on that improper defense.
- In product-injury cases, later maintenance failures or modifications by others do not automatically relieve a manufacturer of liability; whether such conduct breaks causation depends on Arkansas rules governing foreseeability and superseding cause.

## Conclusion

Lambert v. Will Brothers Company reversed a defense verdict in a hydraulic press injury suit because the evidence did not support giving the jury an assumption-of-risk instruction under Arkansas law, and the general verdict prevented the court from determining whether the jury relied on that improper complete defense; the Eighth Circuit therefore remanded for a new trial.


Lambert v. Will Brothers Company, 596 F.2d 799 (1979)