Defense Notches Win in $1.3M Lawsuit Over Faulty Wood Chippers
Lawyers for a south Georgia timber-clearing company had asked for almost $1.3 million in damages and attorney fees stemming from its purchase of two off-road wood chippers.
December 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM
4 minute read
The defense logged a win in a federal trial involving claims that two commercial off-road wood chippers were unreliable and prone to breakdowns, and that the manufacturer breached its warranties.
Lawyers for the plaintiff, a south Georgia company that rents out equipment and provides services for clearing timber, had asked the jury to award nearly $1.3 million, said Jeffrey Ward of Drew Eckl & Farnham's Brunswick office.
"They had eyewitness testimony on a variety of issues they claimed they had with these things, that they didn't work for a day without breaking down," he said.
The chippers, about 30 feet long and 11 feet wide, are commonly used to clear heavy timber for pipeline and utility rights of way, Ward said.
Among the claims was that the machines would turn on and off even if no one was in the control booth.
"There was testimony that one started itself up and started throwing chips out on I-20 in Louisiana," said Ward, who represents defendant Terex Corp. with lead counsel Cary Hiltgen of Hiltgen & Brewer in Oklahoma City.
Hiltgen is past-president of the Defense Research Institute. Ward is president-elect of the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association.
Plaintiff ROW Equipment is represented by Brent Savage, Kathryn Pinckney and Sam Mikell of Savannah's Savage, Durham, Turner, Pinckney & Savage.
In an email Savage said, "We respect the jury's decision but were surprised by the result. We still feel we have a meritorious case."
According to ROW's complaint, the first Woodsman Biomass Chipper it bought in 2012 had "mechanical issues," including several broken components.
Terex "was aware that there were mechanical issues with Chipper 1 and assured the plaintiff that it will repair these issues," the complaint said. "However, Terex Corporation has failed to repair the issues."
Nonetheless, ROW bought another chipper in 2014 that it claimed was also defective.
In addition to engaging on its own, "Chipper 2 also has electrical problems, including, but not limited to, a defective radio and camera in the cab and a defective squirt boom."
The shoddy manufacturing and design not only cost ROW because of lost business revenue for "machines which are in fact worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than [they] should be because the machines are defective," it said.
The chippers were repossessed in late 2016.
ROW and its owner, John James, sued in Pierce County Superior Court, and Terex had the complaint removed to the U.S. District Court for Georgia's Southern District in Waycross.
The suit included claims for breach of contract, negligent design, negligent manufacturing and breach of express and implied warranties, but several claims were dismissed on summary judgment as the litigation progressed.
The case went to trial Dec. 9 before Judge Stan Baker on ROW's claims for breach of warranty and attorney fees.
Ward said the main witnesses were ROW's owner and company employees, who testified about problems with the chippers "and how they broke down all the time."
There was also testimony from a customer who rented one of the chippers and also allegedly had problems, Ward said.
The plaintiffs lawyers asked for special damages of $887,000, Ward said, and attorney fees of 33%, for a total just shy of $1.3 million.
The jury took about four hours to find for the defense at about 8:30 p.m. Friday, he said.
Baker did not allow the lawyers to speak to the jurors, Ward said.
Hiltgen said he thought the jury understood that Terex had done its best to satisfy James and his company.
"Mr. Savage and his team tried an exceptional case," said Hiltgen. "Our client just thought we had treated the customer very fairly and each and every time they requested warranty work, we serviced the machinery."
"Sometime you just have to stand behind the men and women who actually build the product; we wanted to show the employees that we were standing behind them," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11th Circuit Issues Substitute Ruling, Grants Attorney Fees on Top of $8.3M Judgment
5 minute readAmerica's Bitcoin Miners See Georgia as the New Hot Spot
International Oil, Gas Firms Accused of Violating Sanctions to Aid Russian Co.
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250