## Facts

- William Boston, a supervising mechanic for PEPCO, responded to an emergency call and used a materials truck he had not used before.
- The truck had an Anthony A-146 single-cylinder hydraulic liftgate distributed by Warner Fruehauf Trailer Company, Inc.
- After Boston and a coworker used the liftgate to move heavy objects, the coworker returned the platform to (or near) its vertical closed position.
- As Boston approached to secure safety chains, the approximately 1,050-pound platform malfunctioned, fell freely, and struck Boston, injuring his hip.
- Boston had only a brief safety class on liftgates generally, had never used a single-cylinder liftgate, and had not previously observed similar hydraulic equipment fail.
- The Bostons sued in strict products liability for defective design, alleging the liftgate was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked any backup device to prevent free fall if the primary support failed.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that redundant supports or locking mechanisms were feasible and that warnings/instructions did not adequately alert users to free-fall risk.
- First trial: the jury found for Warner Fruehauf after receiving an assumption-of-risk instruction; the trial court set the verdict aside as unsupported by the evidence.
- Second trial: the court directed a verdict for plaintiffs on liability, submitting only damages to the jury; the jury awarded $550,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly set aside the first defense verdict because the assumption-of-risk instruction lacked evidentiary support.
2. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for plaintiffs on liability because the liftgate was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The trial court properly set aside the first verdict because the evidence did not support instructing the jury on assumption of risk.
- The trial court properly directed a verdict for plaintiffs on liability because the evidence compelled the conclusion that the liftgate was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous.
- The damages judgment of $550,000 was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- In District of Columbia strict products liability for design defect, the plaintiff must prove the product was sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition.
- Assumption of risk requires proof that the plaintiff had actual, subjective knowledge of the specific defect and the specific danger it created and voluntarily chose to encounter that risk; general awareness that equipment can be dangerous is insufficient.
- A directed verdict is proper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, reasonable jurors could not differ on the result.
- Risk–utility considerations (severity and likelihood of harm, feasibility and cost of safer alternatives, product utility, and adequacy of warnings) inform whether a design is unreasonably dangerous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a new trial and a directed verdict for plaintiffs in a strict products liability design-defect case, holding that assumption of risk could not go to the jury without evidence of the plaintiff’s specific knowledge of the defect and that unrebutted risk–utility evidence and inadequate warnings can establish an unreasonably dangerous design as a matter of law.


Warner Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Boston, 654 A.2d 1272 (D.C. 1995)