OPE daily

I am concerned that a litigious society trying to place responsibility is actually displacing it.

The family of an Oregon girl injured by a lawn mower has filed a suit against the manufacturer and equipment dealer that sold the mower. The AP reported that Kirk Norton was mowing his lawn at their Springfield home when he backed over his 4-year old daughter and amputated her leg. This tragic event has led the Norton’s to seek $8.5 million dollars in damages and medical care from the John Deere Co. and the seller Ramsey-Waite Co.

“John Deere Co. spokesman Ken Golden said the mower Norton was driving disables the cutting blades when driven in reverse, unless the driver overrides the safety mechanism by flipping a switch.”

I wrote about this type of device, which was implemented in 2004, because of similar accidents involving  mowing in reverse. The issue I want to address now is when and where does the responsibility shift (if at all) from the manufacturer, the retailer, and the user?

A machine was produced in accordance with the American National Standards Institute and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that will disable the mower’s ability to operate the blades in reverse until the operator makes a conscious decision to flip a switch that temporarily removes the safety feature. That machine was then sold through the normal course of business, I assume, with the owner’s manual, other operating material, and free from any altering or tampering by the equipment dealer. The owner or operator takes physical receipt of the machine and operates it at their discretion.

Do all parties maintain an equal level of responsibility for the safe operation of equipment, and what is the duration of their respective responsibility?

Flipping through my lawn tractor’s owner’s manual (it’s a Huqvarna YTH 2548) I can read the two-and-a-half pages of “Safety Rules and Guidelines” that outline mowing and operating safety. The Husqvarna tractor has a similar device I believe they refer to it as the Reverse Operation System (ROS).

Along with general operating conditions, the manual also has specific directions regarding slope limitations, towing safety, the affore mentioned ROS, and children/bystander conditions. The issue of children and bystanders, or rather, as the manual states, to make sure they are not present in the mowing area is addressed separately from the issue mowing in reverse. That is, it is not safe to have any bystanders present regardless of mowing direction but particularly while transitioning from one direction to the next.

Listen, I don’t want to absolve any party of his responsibility to ensure the safety of all people. I am in favor of the justice system’s ability to affect change in our community. I am concerned, however, with the impact of our litigation system’s dependence on passing that responsibility, especially in emotional and empathetic cases such as this,.

In our court of public opinion, did the manufacturer neglect to make a safe machine? Did the retailer neglect to inform the customer of an unsafe machine? Or did the operator neglect to make safe decisions in the operation of a machine?