Wallace V. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Et Al

Case Background

On March 23, 2022, Tyler Wallace filed a product liability action alleging negligence and failure to warn of the defective and dangerous conditions at his workplace. The case was heard in the United States District Court, Alabama Southern (Mobile). The case was assigned to Chief District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock and referred to Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray. [Case number: 1:22cv128]

Cause

Defendant TSI Inc. specializes in the design, development, manufacturing, testing, marketing, distribution, and sale of trim waste conveyor belts for the oriented strand board (OSB) industry. Central to this case was the TSI 425-771-1190, Item# 07D Trim Waste Conveyor.

On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff Tyler Wallace, an employee of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation at their Thomasville, Alabama facility, was near this conveyor when he accidentally contacted an unguarded pinch point at the tail pulley, resulting in severe and permanent injuries.

Injury

Due to the Defendant’s negligence and wanton attitude, Wallace suffered serious injuries to his right hand, arm, and other parts of his body due to the incident.

Damages

Wallace sought a judgment against the Defendants for an amount determined by the jury. He requested both compensatory and punitive damages.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Tyler Wallace
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Stewart Leon Howard | Wyatt Perry Montgomery | Evan Gregory Allen | Kendall Dunson | Matthew Ross Griffith
  • Defendant(s): TSI Inc | Louisiana-Pacific Corporation A Corporation dba  LP Building Solutions [Terminated: 04/12/2023] | Casey Industrial, Inc. [Terminated: 07/05/2024] | CPM Consultants, Inc. [Terminated: 06/14/2024]
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Adam K. Peck | Sanford Graham Hooper | William McKinley Dunn

Claims

Wallace’s claims centered on the idea that the conveyor and its components were defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings. The subject trim waste conveyor and its components remained in nearly the same condition as when they were manufactured, sold, or distributed. They were used in a foreseeable manner, yet they were not reasonably safe. Instead, the conveyor and its parts were defective and posed unreasonable dangers to users.

Specifically, the trim waste conveyor lacked adequate guarding around the tail pulley, where the Plaintiff sustained his injury. TSI knew or should have known with reasonable care, that the conveyor was unreasonably dangerous when used as expected. TSI’s failure to properly design the conveyor exposed the Plaintiff and others to an unreasonable risk of harm.

Additionally, TSI had more opportunities to inspect the conveyor and identify its issues than Plaintiff did. The lack of adequate warnings and instructions created an unreasonable risk for foreseeable users and operators. TSI either knew or should have known about these dangers through ordinary care. By failing to warn the Plaintiff of the conveyor’s defective condition, TSI breached its duty and acted negligently.

Defense

In response, TSI denied any negligence or omission in this matter. They argued Wallace’s own contributory negligence caused or contributed to the alleged injuries and damages. TSI asserted that any dangers posed to the Plaintiff were open and obvious. Furthermore, any claimed non-conforming or defective condition of TSI’s products, as outlined in the Second Amended Complaint, resulted from abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications.

According to TSI, the product was not defective under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine for two main reasons. First, these products were not unreasonably dangerous, as they did not present greater risks than what an ordinary user would anticipate. Second, the manufacture and design of the products complied with the state of the art at the time they were produced.

Additionally, TSI denied that the conveyor was defective when it left the manufacturer’s control. TSI maintained that their products met all necessary safety standards and that any issues arose after the sale due to factors outside their control. TSI asserted its position firmly, emphasizing that the responsibility for any injuries lay with the Plaintiff’s actions and not with the product itself.

Jury Verdict

On August 6, 2024, the jury ruled in favor of TSI, concluding that no negligence was found, and awarded no damages to Wallace. A judgment consistent with this verdict was entered.

Post-trial Motions

On August 30, 2024, Wallace filed a motion for a new trial, seeking further legal recourse.

Court Documents:

Available upon request