On April 18, 2008, the plaintiff, a 45-year-old warehouseman, was assisting a coworker in unloading a 10,000-pound forklift when the jack stand on the trailer failed. As a result, the trailer collapsed and fell onto the back of the plaintiff’s right ankle, severely crushing and degloving his right foot, which ultimately required an amputation. The warehouseman sued the manufacturer of the trailer; the trailer’s retailer; and the maintainers of the trailer, the warehouseman’s employers, an electrical contracting company, its subsidiaries, its parent company and the companies’ founder and president. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer was negligent for the defect design of the subject trailer, creating a dangerous condition, and for failing to warn of the dangers of unloading the trailer. He also alleged that his employers failed to properly repair and/or maintain the trailer, further adding to the trailer’s dangerous condition. The trailer manufacturer subsequently brought a cross-complaint against the warehouseman’s employers and the trailer’s retailer, as well as against the manufacturer of the trailer hitch, seeking indemnification. Counsel for the trailer’s retailer moved to be let out of the case on summary judgment, and the motion was granted. The trailer hitch manufacturer was also ultimately let out of the case. The warehouseman claimed that the trailer manufacturer defectively designed the trailer by placing the jack stand off to the side of the trailer, rather than in the center. He claimed that as a result, increased pressure was placed on the juncture weld during normal operation, causing the trailer to ultimately collapse. The warehouseman also claimed that the instructions and warnings available about the proper procedures for loading and unloading the trailer were inadequate. The warehouseman further claimed that his employers, which maintained the trailer, were liable for the accident as a result of their negligent bailment of the defective equipment. He alleged the equipment had been previously damaged and improperly inspected, such that a defect at the juncture of the weld had developed and gone unnoticed, which weakened the structure and contributed to the failure at the time of the incident. In addition, he alleged the weld juncture had fracture lines and material failure that preceded the date of the incident. Thus, the warehouseman claimed that his employers’ negligent maintenance, inspection and use of the equipment at the time of the accident, causing the accident. The trailer manufacturer asserted that the trailer was not negligently designed. The warehouseman’s employers contended that the trailer was not previously damaged and that the entire incident was caused by the negligence of a co-employee. Their counsel subsequently moved for summary judgment on those issues, but the motions were denied. In denying summary judgment, the trial court also decided that the employers’ parent and sister companies could not assert the shield of the exclusive remedy doctrine of worker’s compensation as a defense to the plaintiff’s claims., The warehouseman was taken from the scene of the accident by ambulance and brought to an emergency room. He suffered a grade-III Lisfranc fracture of his right foot, as well as degloving injury. The injury also severely damaged the blood vessels and nerves in his foot. As a result, the warehouseman underwent five surgeries over 17 days, but ultimately required a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg and was later fitted with a prosthetic device. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of changes in his level of activity due to his amputation, his pre-existing diabetes became symptomatic, requiring the need for medication. He also claimed that he suffers from anxiety, depression, irritability and an intermittent sleep disorder. The plaintiff further claimed that he will require pain management, therapeutic care, and future home health care, as well as require a lifetime of care for his prosthetic devices. Thus, the plaintiff sought recovery of damages for his past medical costs, future life care costs, lost earnings, and past and future pain and suffering. The State Compensation Insurance Fund intervened in the action to recover a worker’s compensation claim. However, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that no viable claim for lien or intervention was available to the employers as a result of the employers’ fault.