Posts tagged "Pantazis"

Pantazis v. Mack Trucks, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-145-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   16-P-1497                                       Appeals Court   ANN E. PANTAZIS, executrix,[1]  vs.  MACK TRUCKS, INC., & another.[2]     No. 16-P-1497.   Worcester.     September 12, 2017. – November 27, 2017.   Present:  Milkey, Hanlon, & Shin, JJ.     Negligence, Manufacturer, Duty to warn.  Practice, Civil, Summary judgment.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 11, 2012.   The case against defendant Parker-Hannifin Corporation was heard by Raffi N. Yessayan, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and entry of judgment was ordered by Shannon Frison, J.; the case against defendant Mack Trucks, Inc., was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J., on a subsequent motion for summary judgment, and entry of judgment was ordered by him.     Roger J. Brunelle for the plaintiff. William J. Dailey, III, for Mack Trucks, Inc. Richard L. Neumeier for Parker-Hannifin Corporation.     MILKEY, J.  Mark Fidrych owned a dump truck that he used to haul soil.  On the morning of April 13, 2009, Fidrych was seen at his farm working on the truck.  Later that day, he was found dead underneath it, with his clothing caught up in a spinning universal joint (U-joint) that was part of the mechanical system used to tilt the “dump body” of the truck.  The medical examiner identified the cause of death as accidental asphyxiation.  In her capacity as executrix of Fidrych’s estate, his widow, Ann Pantazis, filed a wrongful death action in the Superior Court.  She sued, among others, Mack Trucks, Inc. (Mack Trucks), which manufactured the original, stripped-down version of the truck, and Parker-Hannifin Corporation (Parker-Hannifin), which had acquired the assets of Dana Corporation (Dana).[3]  Dana manufactured a piece of equipment known as a “power take-off” (PTO), which was another part of the system used to tilt the dump body of Fidrych’s truck.  In two separate summary judgment rulings, different Superior Court judges ruled in favor of each of these defendants.[4]  We affirm. Background.[5]  In 1987, Fidrych purchased the truck from Winnipesaukee Truck P&T, an independent Mack Trucks dealer, which had purchased it from Mack Trucks the previous year.[6]  At the time of Fidrych’s purchase, the truck was what is known as an “incomplete vehicle.”  That meant that the truck had a chassis, cab, and engine, but it lacked essential components (and associated equipment) necessary to carry out the truck’s ultimate intended function.  Through […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 27, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,