## Facts

- Michael Milanowicz, a General Motors facility employee, operated a Raymond stand-up counterbalanced lift truck and was injured while manually adjusting its forks.
- The forks were laterally adjusted by pivoting each fork up to disengage a retaining pin from carriage holes, shifting the fork sideways, and pivoting it down so the pin re-engaged in a selected hole.
- Milanowicz lowered the lift carriage onto a guardrail to pivot the forks up, then raised the carriage; one fork did not re-engage.
- While trying to lift/shift the fork by hand, his hand slipped on grease into the pinch point as the pin dropped into place, partially amputating a finger.
- The lift truck’s original Raymond 48-inch forks had been replaced with longer 60-inch forks made by a different manufacturer.
- The replacement forks differed from Raymond’s specifications: Raymond’s pin was chamfered to assist alignment, while the replacement pin was square-shouldered, increasing the likelihood of misalignment.
- Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer under New Jersey products-liability law alleging design defect, failure to warn, and inadequate instructions, plus a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, challenging the sufficiency and reliability of plaintiffs’ expert proof.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced admissible, reliable expert evidence establishing a feasible safer alternative design and proximate causation for a design-defect claim under New Jersey law.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced admissible, reliable expert evidence that warnings or instructions were inadequate and that additional warnings/instructions would have prevented the injury.
3. Whether the derivative loss-of-consortium claim could proceed absent an underlying products-liability claim.

## Decision

- The court granted the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The design-defect claim failed because plaintiffs’ expert did not provide a reliable, supported feasible alternative design or competent causation evidence.
- The failure-to-warn and inadequate-instructions claims failed for lack of competent expert support and insufficient proof that any different warning would have changed plaintiff’s conduct and avoided the injury.
- The loss-of-consortium claim was dismissed because it was derivative of the failed substantive claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Jersey products-liability law, a design-defect plaintiff must show a reasonably feasible safer alternative design and that the alleged defect proximately caused the injury.
- Expert opinions must be based on reliable methods and supported by testing, engineering analysis, or other objective bases; conclusory assertions and unsupported speculation are insufficient to reach a jury.
- In assessing an asserted alternative design, courts may consider feasibility, state of the art, industry practice, and whether the expert can explain implementation, performance, cost/utility, and risk tradeoffs.
- Failure-to-warn and inadequate-instructions claims require proof of inadequacy and proximate causation, including evidence that a specific additional warning or instruction would likely have altered the user’s behavior.
- Evidence of substantial aftermarket modification can defeat causation where the modification plausibly explains the accident mechanism and the plaintiff cannot link the injury to a defect attributable to the original manufacturer.
- A loss-of-consortium claim fails as a matter of law when the underlying tort claims are dismissed.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for the manufacturer because plaintiffs’ case depended on expert testimony that did not reliably establish a feasible safer alternative design or warning-related causation, and the record supported an alternative explanation tied to nonconforming replacement forks rather than a defect in the original product.


Milanowicz v. The Raymond Corp., 148 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D.N.J. 2001)