GRT UTILICORP POST DRIVER
We will be exhibiting at SPIcon September booth With regard to the hierarchy of safety techniques opinion two , Dr. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, the Court will not exclude the opinions contained in the supplemental report on this basis. Further, the methods of engineering analysis applied by Dr. You have reach your max limit.
|Date Added:||19 June 2010|
|File Size:||5.15 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An “adaptor cap” or “anvil adaptor” fits onto the top of the I-beam. Further, the methods of engineering analysis applied by Dr.
Cunitz to opine that they were not. Cunitz concludes that none of the warnings and labels on the machinery addressed the hazard that ultimately occurred, the post being ejected, nor did any warnings or labels provide any instruction necessary to avoid injury even though they could have and should have. Therefore, in the absence of prejudice, the Court will not exclude the opinions contained in grh supplemental report on this basis.
More specifically, utilizing the opinion of Dr. Therefore, the motion as it applies to Dr. Cunitz will not be permitted to testify as to this opinion. The establishment of each LPLA element is a question of fact for the jury to determine.
GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | Construction Equipment
Remember to stop by Hall A Booth to see how we can help you install your solar pilings more efficiently! This machine is for sale!
Singhose’s methods and the theories utilized to reach his conclusions could be tested against standard, reliable, published engineering analysis principles which have been accepted in his scientific community. When a post is driven, a 1, lb. Where the I-beam meets the ground, there is a “footer” or “foot adaptor” that latches onto the I-beam and holds utilicorl in place so that the post goes into the ground at the correct angle.
Our service facility also has the capability to repair, rebuild, or service all makes of htilicorp diggers and post drivers. This Court finds that the testimony of Dr. Cunitz issued six opinions in his initial report. Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you!
Francis v. GRT Utilicorp, Inc. | W.D. La. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
Sections of this page. Cunitz opined that there should have been a warning that only OEM parts were to be used if a part utiliforp the post driver needed to be replaced and the failure to replace that part with an OEM part would compromise a critical safety function of the machine.
Illinois Central Railroad Co. Cunitz’s anticipated testimony may not be required utiilcorp assist the jury in grh whether a warning should or should not have been provided with regard to the danger of post ejection or the need for using OEM replacement parts on the post driver.
Cunitz on the information contained in his supplemental report. He did not conduct that analysis since he felt he had found an utiliicorp solution and he did not feel this type of catastrophic event could be adequately warned against given the design utulicorp the post driver based on the engineering literature. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: Cunitz stated in his initial report: While the weight ultimately given to his opinions may be impacted by vigorous cross-examination by the defendants, the issues raised in the cross examination utilciorp the hearing do not require his testimony to be held inadmissible.
A machine developed with ytilicorp overhang on the non-working side of the machine in order to drive posts where space is tight or lane closures are difficult. The characteristic of a product that renders it unreasonably dangerous due to a design defect or inadequate warning must exist at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result from a reasonably anticipated alteration or frt of the product.
Singhose testified regarding the engineering principles he followed to arrive at his conclusion and provided the support for those principles from other texts. A product is unreasonably dangerous in design if, at the time the product left its manufacturer’s control: Whitehouse, testified that the adaptor cap was one of two critical safety component parts of the machine and if these two parts were not used during the operation of the post driver, then the post driver lacked a safety device that would prevent a post from being ejected.
Stop by to see us if you’re attending the show! A product can be unreasonably dangerous only if a the product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition; b the product is unreasonably dangerous in design; c the product is unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the product psot not provided; or d the product is unreasonably dangerous because it does not conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty.
Upload brief to use the new Utipicorp search. Cunitz holds a Ph. Stop by and say hello and see what we can offer you for your post driving and drilling needs!