Workman v. Axalta Coating Systems, LLC, No. 5:2017cv00108 - Document 83 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 5/3/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COUFF AT R- OKE,VA FILED MAt 23 2218 IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RT FoRTHEHW AR ER ST IS EORNKBD UI RSG TR DII C VTISO IO FN WRGINIAv J , ULj UDLEMCERK H A RRY W O RW AN , Plaintiffy Case N o.5:17-cv-00108 V. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld AX AT,TA COAT IN G SY STEM S, LLC, ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N PlaintiffHatryW ozkmanwasinjuredbyan electricshockreceivedwhile installingaconveyorsystem atdefendantAxaltaCoatingSystems,LLC'SrfAxalta'') facility in FrontRoyal,Virginia on O ctober21,2015.W orkm an contendsthathewas shockedbecauseAxaltaimproperlywiredanexplosionproof(<fM 7'')plugtotheend ofan extension cord supplied by him to ptovidepowerto W orkm an's stud w elder. W hile therewaslittle dispute thattheelectdc shock stem m ed from a flaw in the extension cord,Axalta contestswhetherW orlrm an proved thatthe shock stem m ed from faultywiring oftheX'P plug asopposed to som e unknown inflrmitywith the extension cord.A fter afour-day ttial,dueling experts,and m to ple opponuniéesto Workman v. Axalta Coating Systems, LLC Doc. 83 hearW orkm an,ajuty found forW orkman and awardedhim $473,295.22plus prejudgmentinterest.J.Civ.Action,ECF No.60. Thismatterisbeforethecourtôn Axalta'sRenewedM otion forludgmentasa M atterofLaw and forN ew Trial,ECF N o.67.Testing conducted by Axalta Dockets.Justia.com im m ediately aftetW orkm an wasshocked revealed an electticalfaultin the extension cotd,som ewherebetween theX P plug wited by Axalta and therestofthecozd supplied byW orkm an.W ozkm an'sexpertelectdcalengineer,ChatlesM aztorana, testified thatheruled outotherproblem swith W orkm an'sextension cord becauseit worked withoutflaw befoze and aftez the shock to W ozkm an on O ctober21,2015. Axalta contendsthatM artorana'sopinion w asundetm iped becauseW orkm an could notdefinitively establish thatthe extension cord ftmctioned properly afterthe incident.A ssuch,A xaltaarguesthatthattheverdictlacked alegally sufficientbasis. Axalta alternatively seeksa new trial,arguing thattheverdictwasagainstthegreat weightpftheevidenceand wasbased on aflawedjuryinstruction. Although the evenm alwhereaboutsoftheextension cord w erenotestablished wit.h certainty,thecourtconcludesthat,on balance,W orkm an presented substanéal evidenceto supportthejury'sverdictthatAxaltawasresponsiblefottheelectdc shock suffered by W orkm an.N oristhere any basisto grantthem odon fornew tdal. Fozthereasonsdiscussed below,the courtwillD EN Y Axalta'sm otions. W orkm an wastasked with worldng on am etalconveyor system attheAxalta paintplant.Because hiswork involved theuse ofa st'ud welder,Axaltarequired the welderto be connected to apowersourcebym eansofan XP plug.Because ofthe distanceofthe st'ud welderto tlaepowersotzrce,W ozkm an needed to usean extension cord he bzoughtwith llim to Axalta.Richard Bittner,an Axalta electrician, attached the pigtailed witeson them ale end ofW orkm an'sextension cord to an (K17 plug supplied by Axalta.A ssuch,A xalta'sliabilityttzrnson w hetherBittner'swiring wasdonenegigently.Bitmerdemonstzated forthejuryhow hewired theXP plug, and testified thatit wentfftogetherpretty effortlessly.'' BittnerTzialTest.,ECF N o. 76,at39.A fterthe XP plug wasattached to apowersotzrce,W orkm an received an electric shock when he touched laisunpowezed st'ud w elder.W ozkm an collapsed and wastaken by am bulance to the hospital. Afterthe incident,Axalta'sD avid W addellpetfotvned conductivitytesdng on theextension cord with theX P plug attached.Thistesting zevealed conducévity between ground and hotwiresin the extension cord,which w asTtnottheway it should be.'' W addellTrialTest.,ECF N o 73,at9-10,17-20.Axalta em ployeesthen tried to rem ove the XP plug from theextension cord,butthe X'P plug w ould not unscrew in a norm alfashion.Vaziouswitnessestestified that,foran unexplained zeason,theXP plug wasgalled,reqlliting itsdisassem bly by two m en using channel lock pliers.Bitm erTrialTest.,ECF N o.76,at42-43.Thedestructivenafnpre ofthis processwrenched open the XP plug,rrïaldng itim possible to deternaine the configllraéon ofitsinternalwire connectioils.W addellTrialTest.,ECF N o.73,at13- 14.Significantly,atthispoint,therewasnoway to telliom looltingatthe disassem bled XP plug whethetithad been cottectly wited. W orkm an teturned to Axaltg the nextday,butw astoo frailto com plete lzis work.Rather,his associateloaded the stud welderand othertoolson W orkm an's truck forhisreturn trip to lllinois.W orkm an did notinventoryllistoolswhen he left Axalta,and did notlook to seewhetherhisextension cord w asretarned to itsstorage compartm enton the stazd welder.U pon hisreturn from Axalta,W orkm an had the stud welderexarnined byitsm anufactarer,N elson Stazd W elding,lnc.,which found no problem with thewelderand itintegralpow ercord. Asto the extension cotd, although W orkm an did notsee the extension cord . when he leftAxalta,he believed thatitwasreturned to serdce and funcéoned withoutincident. O n Hirectexahiinadon,W orkm an testified asfollows: Q. After you did give the stazd welder back to the folks at N elson, did you reui te it to the designated powet cord that had been used befoze the O ctober 21, 2015 accident? A . I believe so.The reason l say <fI believe so''is becausethatwould have been outin the shop;and when Ibroughtthe unitback,m y partnezim m ediately putthe fznitback into service. Q. Did theextension cord go back in the samebed thatithad previously been stored in on thatm achine? A . It would had to have been used. W e had to actazally use the extension cord. Q. W as it actazally used by you after October 21, 2015,afteritcam eback from N elson? W hen Iw asin the shop,yes,Iused it. Q. And did itperfot'm asflawlessly asithad before the accident? A. W ehad no prpblem with itwhatsoever. )N Q. Since October of2015,have you used the stud welderwith those sam e extension cords? A. D efmitely. 4 Q. Everhad anyproblemssincetheaccident? A. N o,sir. W orkm an TtialTest.,ECF N o.65,at19,88. U ncertainty aroseconcerning the extension cord when itdid notaccom pany thestudwelderforinspectionin connecdonwith thiskwstzit.W orkman'spartner, D ale Chapm an,twice sentextension cordsto theretained expertsforinspecdon,but neitheronettzrned outto be the cord used on the day W orkm an wasshocked.A sof the tzial,the extension cotd tem ained m issing.l O n cross-exanaination and when called by Axalta asan adversewitnessin its case,W orkm an conceded thathecould notbe certain whethertheextension cord at issuewasloaded onto histtuck the day afterhewasshocked,and thgtitw aspossible thatitw asleftatA xalta. W orkm an testified: Q. You have no idea ifyou ever saw the extension cord you broughtto theAxalta facility O ctober21,2015, afterthe dateofthe occurrence;correct? Correct. + Q. You neverreceived thatcord back,to thebestof your knowledge;right?Y ou don'tknow one way or the other. Idon'tknow . Q. So you don'tknow whetheritwas everputback in producdon eitherbecause you don'tktaow ifyou ever received itback. 1N orwasthe X P plug çverexam ined by the retained expertsasittoo could notbe found. 5 A. I believed atthatfim e thatI did receive it.There was no reason for m e to believe thatitwas notin theze and I-- Q. You haven'tseenitsince,haveyou? A. ldon'tknow. Q You don'tknow whetheroznotyousveeverused itsince the date ofthe occurrence,do you? A. IbelieveIdid. + Q. Sir,you'resaying,<(Ibelieveit.''Do you know it? A. It's--Idon'tbelieveit'sayes ozno answ er. Q. Do you know forafactthatthatcord wasplaced into producdon foEowing the occurrence because you saw it,used ityourself,etcetera;thatyou know it? lbelievethat'san im possible question. + TH E W ITN ESS: The cordsdo nothave num bers on the,or anything like that.I don't-- I have a very,very sm allshop.I've only got two em ployees.It's not like l have rows and rows and tows of these cords.There's fptzrunits.Thete'sfourextension cords. + Q. Yourshop presently onlyhasthree cords.Oneis rnissing;cotrect? Ibelieve. Q. You don'tknow which cord ismissing orwhen thatfotuth cordw entnnissing;cortect? Correct. # Q. W e don'tlcnow ifthecord waseverreturned to you,w hich would lead to the conclusion we don'tknow if it was ever placed back in pzoduction because it's tnissing;right? A. Yes. W orkm an TrialTest.,ECF N o.65,at92;ECF N o.66 at3-6.,19,88. W orkm an wrapped up llistrialtestim onywith hisbeliefthathe took hom ethe extension cord from theAxaltaplantand thatitworked fine afterwards.W hen asked why he held thisbelief,W orkm an teséhed: W hy do you believethat,M . r.W orkm an? A. I had no reason not to believe it. It's everything wasloaded up in --Ibelieved it.Ibelieved it atthe tim e,yes.Everything 1 took there,1 cam e hom e with;and it was later deternnined I had left som e very im portant tools there, they were nice enough to send them back a coupleweekslater. s Q. )N Mr.W orkman,the question is,after'the accident occurred,do you --clid you or,to yourknow ledge,any of your em ployees ever have a problem with the stazd w elder,the integralcord attached to the st'ud welder or the extension cord that you brought hom e wit.h your from Axalta on ...O ctober22,2015? A . W e had no problem s with it whatsoever, and Please rem em ber that there's only two people.There's only two possibilities that could evet do that.It would eitherbe m yselfor my partner,and m y partner doesnot o on theroad. 7 W otkm an TrialTest.,ECF N o.66,at24,28. CharlesM artorana,W orkm an'sexpertelectricalengineer,pinpointed the source ofthe shock astheX' P plug he opined had been nliswired byAxalta.Because M artozana could notexanaine the missing extension cord,he elim inated the cord as thesotltceoftheshockbecauseffgtlheextension cozd thatlived insideofMr. W orkm an'sw elderfuncdoned properly priorto theincidentand aftertheincident.'' M artoranaTrialTest.,ECF N o.75,at35.M artorana based llisopinion in parton the factthatW orkm an told lnim thatthecord wasavailable afterthe occurrenceand continued to funcéon.M ortoranastated thatitwasnewsto him ifthatwasnottrue. II. Rule50$)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureallowsthepartiestorenew amotion forjudgmentasamatteroflaw madeunderRule50(a)following ajuty verdictandjudgment.A districtcourtshouldgrantaRule50$)motiononlyifthe courtf<detetmines,withoutweighing the evidence orconsidering the credibility oftlle witnesses,thatsubstanéalevidencedoesnotsupportthejury'shndings.''S.Atl.Ltd. P'shi ofTenn.L.P.v.lkiese,284F.3d 518,532 (4th Cir.2002)(quoting Konkelv. Bob EvansFarms,Inc.,165F.3d 275,279(4th Cir.1999)).lntulingon themotion, the courtm ustview the evidence and draw allreasonableinfetencesin thelightm ost favorable to the nonm oving party.Lack v.W al-M artStores,Inc.,240 F.3d 255,259 (4th Cir.2001).Thec6urtmaynotsubsdtuteitsjudgmentforthatofthejuryand mustupholdthevezdictifthereisevidenceuponwlnich areasonablejurycould 8 1 return averdictin favorofthe nonm oving party.Pricev.City ofCharlotte,93 F.3d 1241,1249-50(4thCir.1996). Atthe sam e tim e while acourtisfrcom pelled to accozd theutm ostrespectto juryverclictsandtreadgingetlyinreviewingthem,gitisjnotartzbberstamp convened merelytoendozsetheconclusionsofthejuty,butrathetghasladutytorevetsethe juryverdictsiftheevidencecannotsupportit.77ld.at1250 (irtteznalcitaéons onnitted).Kç-f' hequestion on amotion forjudgmentasamatteroflaw isthusnot whetherthe plaintiffpreviously satisfied som elooseproxy,butratherwhetherthe trialrecordevincesatlegallysuffkientevidentiarybasisforazeasonablejurf'tohave reached itsverdict.Fed.R.CiV.P.50(a)(1);Clinev.W al-M artStores,lnc.,144 F.3d 294,301(4th Cit.1998).W hete,ashere,causation isdisposidve,thepropertestisof Kffprobabiliy 'Tzeasonableprobabilits'Tsubstantiplprobability'ratlx rthan m ere fpossibility.'''Lovelacev.Sherwin-W illiamsCo.,681F.2d 240,242 (4th Cir.1982). Tlnislevelofproofisreqlpited to avoid the Ttspecialdangerthatin a m atterso generallyincapableofcertainproofjuty decision willbeon thebasisofsheer speculation,ultim ately épped,in view oftheim possibilityofchoosing rationally between m ere fpossibilities,'byimperrnissible butundçrstandable resoztto such factorssuch assym pathy and the like.''Id. Axaltacentersitsattack on thejuryverdicton W otkman'sfailuretonzleouta defectin thernissing extension cozd asthe sourceofthe shock.To be sure, W orkm an did notinventoryhiseqttipm entupon leavingA xalta and testihed thathe could notbe certain thatthe extensiod cord wastherewhen heleft.ButW orkm an 9 testified overand overagain thathebelieved,from the sm allnature ofhisshop and tlzeircondnued operation overensuing m onths,thatthe sttzd welderand associated extension cord waspresentandfunctioned justasbefoze.ln orderto creditAxalta's position atthisstage,thecourtw ould have to disregard W orkm an'stestim ony and instead view the evidencein the lightm ostfavorable to Axalta.Theissueofwhether theextension cord rettzrned from Axalta and operated withoutincidentt'urnsentitely on thecredibilityofW orkm an'stesfim ony.Even though W orkm an did notinventory histoolswhen laistruck leftAxaltaand could notlatezproducethe extension cord forinspection,thequestion whethezthe extension cord wasreturned and continued toworkwasprobedoverandoverbycounselandthejuryhadampleopportunityto assessW orkm an'scredibilityon thisissue.Credibility detezfninationsare quintessentiallytheprovinceofthejury.SeeConnerv.Schrader-Brid e ortInt'l . Inc.,227F.3d179,199-200(4thCk.2000).Thecourtwillnotdisturbthejury's determinaéon thatW orkm an'stestim ony wascredible. Axalta'sfocuson W orkm an'sfailure to establish w it.h certainty thatthe extension cozd wasloaded on histruck afterbeing shocked also ignorestheother evidencesupporting thejuc verdictin tlliscase.First,itwasuncontrovezted that therewere rïo problem swith any ofW ozkm an'sequipm ent,inclucling the extension cord,before the XP plug w asattached.Second,Axalta'sW addelltestihed thatafter W orkm an w asshocked,theextension cord failed aconducdvity test,indicating that oneofitshotwireswasim properly connected to aground wire.Third,whileBittner testified thatheconnected the extension cord to the XP plug ffeffortlesslp''m uldple 10 AtlasFoodS s.andServs.lnc.v.CraneNat.Vendots Inc.,99F.3d587,594(4th Cir.1996);Clinev.W al-M attStores,lnc.,144 F.3d at301. To theextentthatAxalta'sm otion fornew trialisprernised on the sufficiency ofthe evidence surrounding the extension cozd,itisD EN IE D fotthe sam e reasons astheRule50motion.Thejuryhadampleopportunitytoassessthecredibilityof W orkm an'stestim ony that,whilehe could notbecertain,hebelieved the extension cord in queséon wasused withoutincidentafterhewasshocked atAxalta.ln addition,otherevidencesupported thejury'sverdict.Theevidencewasundisputed thatthe extension cord ftm ctioned properlypriorto W orkm an being shocked. W addelrstesHm ony thata hotwirew asconnected to a ground wirewhen the cord w astested im m ediately aftertheshock also wasundisputed.Bittner'stestim ony that heconnected the extension cord to the XP plug effortlessly and cotrectly was Underrnined bythefactthatittook two workerswith channellockpiierstowrench it apartafterW orkm an w asshocked.Given these facts,even though theopetation of theextension cord afterW orkman leftAxaltawassubjecttomuch disagreementand debate attrial,itcannotbe m aintained thattheverdictwasagainsttheclearweightof theevidenceorresultedinamiscarriageofjustice. Finally,Axaltacllimsthatitisentitledto anew ttialbased on aflawedjury instruction.Thejuryinstructions,asawhole,mustffadequa 'telyinform g)thejuryof thecontrolling legalprincipleswithoutnaisleading ozconfusing thejuty to the prejudiceoftheobjecdngparty.''S ellv.McDaniel,824 F.2d 1380,1395 (4th Cir. 1987).ErzoneousjuryinstructionsfTwillmandatereversalofajudgmentonlyifthe witnessestesdfied thatitcould notbeunsctewed notm ally.Rathetittook two wotketsw1t11channellock pliersto wtench apatttheX P plug such thatthe configtzraéon oftheinternalwire connectionscould notbe deterrnined thereafter. Although no one could saywhy theX P plug could notbe disassem bled norm ally, giventlaedifficuléesencountezedindisconnecdngtheM 7pluginthiscase,thejury w ascertainly free to discountBittner'stestim ony thatitwenttogethereffortlessly and m ake thereasonableinferencethatithad been connected im properly. Because thereissubstantialevidence,directand circum stanéal,to supportthe jury'sverdict,Axalta'srenewedmoéonforjudgmentasamattetoflaw mustbe D E N IE D . 111. Alternatively,Axalta seeksa new trial.Thegrantordenialofa m odon fora new tdalisentrusted to and am atterrestingin the sound cliscretion ofthe district cotzrt.W adsworthv.Clindon,846F.2d265,266(4thCir.1988)(citingO1d DolninionStevedorin Cor .v.PolskieLinieOceaniczne,386F.2d193(4thCit. 1967)).Themotion maybegtanted,ffafterajurytrial,foranyreason forwhich anew trialhasheretoforebeen granted in an action at1aw in federalcokzrt.''Fed.R.Civ.P., 59(a)(1)(A).TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourth Circtzit'slistof acceptablegroundsforwhich a courtm ay exerciseitsdiscredon to gzantanew ttial includes:T<(1)theverclictisagainsttheclearweightoftheevidence,or(2)isbased upon evidencewllichisfalse,or(3)willresultin amiscarriageofjusdce,even though thezem ay be substandalevidencewhich w ould preventthe direction ofaverdict.'' errorisdetetminedtohavebeenprejudicial,basedonateview ofthetecotdasa whole.''W ellin tonv.Daniels,717F.2d 932,938 (4th Cit.1983). Axaltacom plainsofa singleinstruction,wlnich surnm arized W orkm an's allegationsasfollows: ln this case, plaintiff H arry W orkm an raises a single clnim against defendant A xalta Coating System s, LLC: the defendant negligently connected the plaindff'ssttzd welderto thepow ersupply. Finallurylnstructipnstdyurylnstructions'),ECF No.57,at17. Axaltaobjectsto thisinstrucéon,clnimingthat<fgtqheonlyevidencepresented attrialby Plaindffconcerned whetherM t.Bittnerproperly connected Plaintiff's extension cordto an explosion proofplup''M em.in Supp.ofRenewed M ot.forJ. asaMatterofLaw,ECF No.67-1,at10.Axaltaconcludesthatffgtjheinstruction ' , substanéallyenlarged Defendant'sduty,allowingthejuryto concludethatAxaltawas notm erelyresponsible/ortheconnecéonitmade...butalsozesponsiblefor checkingallconnecéonsbetween Plaintiff'swelderand thepowersoutce.'?Li at4. Thejuryinstruction complained ofbyAxaltasimplyrecitesW orkman's allegation ofnegligence.Thisinstrucéon wasconsistentwith W otkm an'sAm ended Complaint,whereheclaimed thatffgdlefendantAxaltaanditsemployeeswere negligentin them annerin which the stud welderwasconnected to electricalpower, specifically by m aking im properelectticalconnections,and by allowing thest'ud welderto becom e enetgized so thatitposed an urlreasonable dangerto anyone who mkhttouch it,includingplaintiff....77Amended Complznt,ECF No.16,at!(21. Also,thiswasthesameinstrucdongiveninthepreliminatyinsttucéonstothejury,to whichW orltman didnotobject. Regardless,itisinconceivablethattlùssinglejuryinsttuction could causethe juryto concludethatAxaltawasresponsibleforany failuteofW otkman'sequipment otforW ozkm an'sown negligence.Thezew asno disputein thefactspresented attrial thatthetewasno electticalptoblem w ith eitherthe st'ud w eldetand itsintegtalpow et cord otwith Axalta'sprovision ofpowerto theoutleton theplantfloot.Theentire issuein the case surrounded the extension cord supplied by W orkm an connecting the powersourcettheoutleton theplantfloor)to theintegralcord on thestudwelder. Axalta'sonly rolewith regazd to thatextension cord wastheconnection oftheI Xl7 plug,which W orkm an atgued wasflawed based on W addell'stesting ofthecord after W orkm an wasshocked.A ttrial,A xaltaargued thatW orkm an could notproveby preponderance oftheevidence thatthe shock tesulted from a miswited M 3plug,as opposed to an underrated ordegraded extension cord orW orkm an'sconttibutory negligence.Astheevidence suzrounclingA xalta'srolein the connection ofthe stud w elderto the powersource centered on Bittner'sconnection oftlae extension cord to the X' P plug,thereisno likelihood thattllisinstrucéon restatingW orkm an's allegation ofnegligenceconfusedthejuryorimpetmissiblyexpanded thescopeof Axalta'spotentialliability. lndeed,thejurywasinstructed thatthemerehappening oftheaccidentdid notendtleW orkenan t6 recoverand wasfully charged on theissueofcontributory negligence.Each side focused theirevidenceand argum enton the extension cord, W ozkm an asserting thatthe evidence showed theXP plug wasm iswired,and Axalta focusing on potent/lhazardsposedbypossibledegradadon ofthecotd itselforan unspecified problem with the fem aleplug on the othetend.G iven the entirety ofthe instructionsand the evidence in tlziscase,Axalta'sclnim thatitsliabilitywas im perm issibly broadened by thestatem entofW ozlçm an'sallegation in tizisinstlnpcdon isunfounded.Taken asaw hole,and consideted in the contextoftheevidencein this case,thechallengedinstruction presentedno confusion to thejurynorposed any prejudicetoAxalta.Thecourtcannotconcludethatthisinsttazctionresultedina miscarriageofjusticejusdfyinganew trial. 111. In sum ,thecourtconcludesthatsubstantialevidenceexisted supporting the jurfsverdict,thattheverdictwasnotagainsttheclearweightoftheevidence,and thattheverclictin thiscasedoesnotrepresentarniscarriageofjustice.Assuch, Axalta'sRenewedMotion forludgmentasaM atterofLaw and foraNew Trial,ECF N o.67sisD EN IED . Entered:M ay 3,2019 #/ ' w'r/ve/ . M ichaelF.Urbà CltiefUnite . . , ' ' gtesDisttictludge . '
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
