Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Starrag Group Holding AG

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

April 7, 2017

RICHARD and LORIANN WILLIAMS, husband and wife and the marital community composed thereof, Plaintiffs,
v.
STARRAG GROUP HOLDING AG, a foreign corporation; STARRAG AG, a foreign corporation; STARRAG-HECKERT, INC., a foreign corporation; STARRAG USA, INC., a foreign corporation; DORRIES SCHARMANN TECHNOLOGIE, GmbH, a foreign corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-5, residents of the State of Washington; and JOHN DOES 6-10, residents of the State of Washington, Defendants.

          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., P.S. Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., WSBA #11450 Attorney for Plaintiffs

          BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM, P.S. William J. Leedom, WSBA #2013 Attorney for Defendant

          BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM, P.S. David M. Norman, Attorney for Defendant

          AGREED PRETRIAL ORDER

          The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly Judge.

         I. JURISDICTION

         Jurisdiction is vested in this Court because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000 and is between citizens of different states and countries. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).

         II. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

         A. The plaintiffs will pursue at trial the following claims:

         1. The plaintiffs allege that on April 2, 2011, the plaintiff Richard Williams was injured while properly operating a DST Alpha 1000 M, in the course and scope of his work as a Boeing employee.

         2. The plaintiff Richard Williams fell when a metal grate walkway collapsed while he was standing on the walkway, suffering various injuries.

         3. The plaintiffs allege that defendant DST designed, manufactured, marketed and sold a DST Alpha 1000 milling machine to the Boeing Company identified with serial no. H-800231 ("Alpha 1000") in approximately 2007.

         4. The plaintiffs also allege that the product was not reasonably safe as designed using either a risk-utility analysis or consumer expectation standard, under RCW 7.72.010(2).

         5. The plaintiffs also allege that an alternative design existed which would have made the product safe.

         6. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant DST is a "product seller" under RCW 7.72.010(2) of the Washington Product Liability Act, to the extent that either HCR or STACO actually designed or manufactured any relevant product related to the Alpha 1000.

         7. The plaintiffs allege that DST is a product seller which held itself it out as the manufacturer, even though DST did not itself directly manufacture the metal enclosure or the steel grate walkways.

         8. The plaintiffs allege that nowhere on the DST Alpha 1000 M machine is HCR or STACO identified as a manufacturer.

         9. The plaintiffs allege that Mr. Williams was unaware of the involvement of HCR or STACO in the design or manufacture of the DST Alpha 1000 M machine.

         10. The plaintiffs allege Boeing is faultless with respect to the injuries Mr. Williams' sustained on April 2, 2011.

         11. The plaintiffs allege the plaintiff Richard Williams is also faultless with respect to the injuries he sustained on April 2, 2011.

         12. The plaintiffs allege that virtually all of the medical care and treatment provided to the plaintiff since April 2, 2011, was proximately caused by the fall he suffered on that date.

         B. The defendant will pursue the following affirmative defenses and/or claims:

         1. DST alleges it did not design or manufacture the relevant product in this action, as defined by RCW 7.72.010(3).

         2. DST alleges it did not hold itself out as the manufacturer of the relevant product, as defined by RCW 7.72.010(3).

         3. DST alleges it did not market or brand the relevant product under the DST trade name.

         4. DST alleges it is not a product seller with the liability of a manufacturer as contemplated by RCW 7.72.040(2)(e).

         5. DST alleges the DST Alpha 1000 M involved in Mr. Williams' workplace accident was not and is not defective in any manner and at any point.

         6. DST alleges the DST Alpha 1000 M involved in Mr. Williams' workplace accident was reasonably safe as manufactured and designed at the time of Mr. Williams' accident and at all points.

         7. DST alleges that Mr. Williams' April 2, 2011 workplace accident was not caused by any defective condition of the DST Alpha 1000 M machine.

         8. DST alleges that the contributory negligence of Mr. Williams caused or contributed to the April 2, 2011 workplace accident and subsequent medical treatment.

         9. DST alleges that the contributory negligence of Mr. Williams caused or contributed to the re-aggravation of his right hip injury.

         10. DST alleges that Mr. Williams' alleged injuries and damages were caused by preceding and superseding causes.

         11. DST alleges that Mr. Williams failed to mitigate his own damages.

         12. DST alleges Mr. Williams' alleged injuries and damages were inevitable and unavoidable.

         13. DST alleges that Mr. Williams claimed medical expenses are not reasonable and do not reflect treatment attributable to the April 2, 2011 workplace accident on a more probable than not basis.

         14. DST alleges that Mr. Williams has already been compensated for any alleged lost wages and that his medical treatment has been paid for.

         15. DST alleges that fault should be apportioned against third-parties to this action to the extent they are found liable by the finder of fact.

         16. DST alleges that Mr. Williams' alleged injuries and damages, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by parties over whom this answering defendant had no right of control or legal responsibility.

         III. ADMITTED FACTS

         The following facts are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.