## Facts

- Central Steel and Wire Company purchased a Raymond “sideloader” lift truck designed for narrow aisles, with an operator’s protected cage containing the controls.
- Juan Moran, a Central employee, operated the sideloader and was trained to use the controls only while inside the operator’s cage.
- While returning a tray to a rack, some trays shifted; Moran left the cage and climbed onto the forks and an adjacent platform on the side of the machine to straighten the load.
- Still outside the cage, Moran reached through an opening to pull a control lever to lower the forks.
- As the mechanism descended, Moran’s hand and forearm were caught, causing serious injury; Moran testified he tried to withdraw his arm quickly but could not do so in time.
- Moran sued the manufacturer, alleging defective design/manufacture under negligence and strict-liability theories.
- The manufacturer denied defect and asserted defenses including assumption of risk and product misuse.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Illinois law, Moran’s decision to operate the sideloader controls from outside the operator’s cage—despite training and awareness of the hazard—constituted assumption of risk as a matter of law, barring recovery in strict products liability.
2. Whether the district court should have granted judgment for the manufacturer notwithstanding the jury’s verdict for Moran.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment for Moran.
- The court held Moran assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law, which barred recovery under Illinois strict-liability principles.
- The court concluded the evidence required judgment for the manufacturer, notwithstanding the jury’s contrary finding.

## Legal Principles

- In Illinois strict products liability, assumption of risk is a complete defense when the plaintiff has actual (subjective) knowledge of the danger and voluntarily encounters it.
- The inquiry focuses on what the plaintiff actually knew and chose to risk, not on what a reasonable person should have known.
- Although assumption of risk is typically a jury question, it may be decided as a matter of law where the evidence permits only one conclusion.
- A plaintiff’s own testimony showing awareness of the hazard and a deliberate choice to proceed can establish assumption of risk as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that Moran’s training and testimony showed he knowingly and voluntarily exposed his arm to the moving lift mechanism by operating the controls from outside the safety cage, requiring a finding of assumption of risk as a matter of law and barring strict-liability recovery against the manufacturer.


Moran v. Raymond Corp., 484 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1973)