The Rural Voice, 1994-03, Page 18Agrilaw
Manufacturer's liability for farm equipment
Each year across North America,
thousands of farmers are injured in
farm accidents involving farm mach-
inery and equipment. Some of these
accidents produce tragic consequen-
ces: loss of life, limb and other per-
manent injury. These accidents are
not confined to the operators of the
equipment or machinery, or to adults.
Many of these farm accidents
happen because safety guards are not
replaced, the equipment is not
handled properly or through sheer
exhaustion during long work days.
However, some of these accidents do
occur because of:
- inadequate instructions provided
on the use, handling and
maintenance of the equipment;
• failure to have adequate safety
features on the equipment, for
example, guards or mirrors, ie.
negligent design;
• equipment not being properly
constructed by the manufacturer.
In addition to the protection
afforded to farmers by consumer
protection legislation, the Courts
have held manufacturers accountable
for their negligence in the design and
construction of their product.
Substantial damage awards have been
made to compensate victims injured
by defective products. This area of
law is known as products liability.
In the United States, legislation
and the Courts have placed manufac-
turers in a position where they are
required to anticipate almost every
possible use for their product and to
ensure that it is safe for operation for
each use. United States Courts have
also held manufacturers liable for
their failure to warn users against
improper use or operation of the
equipment.
Canadian Courts have not gone as
far as their U.S. counterparts. In
Canada, manufacturers, distributors,
repairers and others must use "reas-
onable care in the circumstances".
What this means varies from product
to product.
In a 1970 decision of the Ontario
High Court, Ford Motor Company of
Canada was held liable for designing
car brakes with a defective fail-safe
14 THE RURAL VOICE
system. When the brakes operated
properly, they needed only 25 pounds
of force to stop the vehicle; however,
when they did not work properly, 250
pounds of force was needed. The
Court concluded
that the defects
in the brakes
were attributable
to Ford's
negligent
design. The
Court also
concluded that
Ford had a duty
to warn the
consumer about
the danger of
this design.
As a result of
this case and
other cases like
it, the Courts have held manufactur-
ers to a very high standard of warn-
ing. In one case, the Courtheld that,
even where the product was danger-
ous only to a few people, a warning
must be given so that they may test
the product before using it. The
manufacturer is not required to warn
against every possibility, only against
reasonably foreseeable dangers.
In addition, the Courts have re-
quired manufacturers to take reason-
able precautions to ensure that their
warnings are effectively communica-
ted. This means that the manufactur-
er cannot hide such warnings in small
print or in unlikely places on the
product itself. The warning should
be.printed on the label and should be
one which draws the user's attention
to it. The more dangerous the prod -
thousands
of
farmers
injured
add $2.00 postage
& handling
Available in
youth medium,
adult small,
adult medium,
adult large,
adult X-Iarge
and adult XX -large
uct or the potential harm, the greater
the need for clear and effective
warnings.
To recover successfully against a
manufacturer for a defective product,
it is not enough to prove that the ma-
chine is defective. It must be shown
that the defect caused or contributed
to the injury. The Court often appor-
tions responsibility for the injury be-
tween the manufacturer, distributor,
repairer and operator/user. The fact
that the user contributed to the
accident does not mean that the
manufacturer will be completely
relieved of liability.
Farm equipment is dangerous by
its size and the nature of the work it
performs. Sometimes, reasonable
safety precautions are not enough,
and accidents happen. When those
accidents occur, serious consideration
should be given to whether the injury
resulted solely from a lack of com-
monsense or bad luck; it may be that
the equipment or machinery is to
blame. If so, an injured farmer may
be able to recover damages for the
injury suffered from the
manufacturer, including lost income
and future care costs. 0
Agrilaw is a syndicated column produced
by Cohen Highley Vogel & Dawson, a
full service London law firm. Paul G.
Vogel, a partner in the firm, practises in
the area of commercial litigation.
Agrilaw is intended to provide
information to farmers on subjects of
interest and importance. The opinions
expressed are not intended as legal
advice. Before acting on any information
contained in Agrilaw, readers should
obtain legal advice with respect to their
own particular circumstances.
The RURAL VOICE
TIE NAGAZ•E OF TIE AORICUITURA. NOUS RV
T Shirts
Send $10.70 (taxes included) to:
The Rural Voice
Box 429
Blyth, ON NOM 1H0