## Facts

- John Mesman, an Infra‑Metals employee, was catastrophically injured when a load of steel sheets fell from an overhead crane during unloading from a boxcar; his wife asserted loss of consortium.
- Infra‑Metals used a very old, ceiling-mounted bridge crane with a hoist and spreader beam; an operator’s cab was attached to the bridge above the rail siding.
- Crane Pro Services (Konecranes) was hired to renovate the crane and observed its operation, including minimal clearance between the boxcar rim and the overhead cab when unloading under the cab section.
- Konecranes converted the crane from cab operation to ground-level, hand-held remote control, leaving the cab physically in place though no longer functionally needed.
- Konecranes installed an emergency-stop button on the remote designed to halt crane movement immediately.
- During unloading, the remote operator saw the spreader beam nearing the cab; instead of pressing emergency stop, he mistakenly pressed “down,” the crane struck the cab, the load was jarred loose, and the steel fell onto Mesman.
- The Mesmans sued under Indiana products-liability and negligence theories, claiming Konecranes should have removed or otherwise addressed the obsolete cab because it created a foreseeable collision hazard that could dislodge loads.
- A jury returned a large verdict for the Mesmans; the district court entered judgment as a matter of law (JML) for Konecranes and, alternatively, ordered a new trial due to jury confusion from irrelevant evidence and ignored instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Konecranes liable under Indiana products-liability and negligence principles for leaving the inoperative cab in place after renovation.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on perceived jury confusion and disregard of instructions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the district court’s entry of JML for Konecranes.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that leaving the obsolete cab created an unreasonable and foreseeable hazard and that removing it could have reduced the risk.
- The court affirmed the district court’s alternative order granting a new trial, concluding the new-trial ruling fell within the trial judge’s discretion.
- The case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- JML is improper where the record contains sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find liability under applicable products-liability and negligence standards.
- A renovator or rebuilder that redesigns equipment may be liable when it leaves a known physical configuration that creates a foreseeable, avoidable risk of serious harm.
- Foreseeable operator mistakes (such as pressing the wrong control) generally do not constitute a superseding cause when the alleged defect is a failure to design against predictable human error.
- A district court has broad discretion to grant a new trial when it finds the jury was misled by irrelevant evidence or failed to follow critical instructions; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ evidence could support liability for leaving an unnecessary crane cab that created a foreseeable collision-and-falling-load hazard, so judgment as a matter of law for the defendant was reversed; however, the court upheld the district court’s discretionary grant of a new trial and remanded for retrial.


Mesman v. Crane Pro Servs., 409 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2005)