On Dec. 27, 2005, plaintiff Robert Kammerer, 39, a construction hoist operator, was transporting a co-employee to the roof of the San Mateo Library job site using an Alimak Scando 4000 construction hoist when the hoist malfunctioned and would not respond to input from the operator. Unbeknownst to Kammerer, an electric component within the hoist had short-circuited rendering the manual controls and safety interlock system inoperable. The electrical failure also rendered the high and low limit switches, door interlock switch and stop button inoperable. As a result, the hoist climbed upwards out-of-control. The hoist was equipped with a mechanical lever that acted as a manual shut-off to control the main power. However, the power was not shut off and the hoist continued climbing. Kammerer subsequently opened the hoist gate, which did not cut off the power as it was supposed to, as the machine passed the roof landing. Kammerer claimed that since the hoist continued to climb, he believed that it was going to come off of the mast, so he attempted to exit the moving hoist onto the roof landing. However, Kammerer fell roughly 50 feet to the concrete below. The hoist continued upward until it hit the top of the mast and stopped. Kammerer’s co-employee, who remained in the hoist, did not sustain any physical . Kammerer sued the general contractor on the San Mateo Library job, Charles Pankow Builders Inc.; the subcontractor hired by Charles Pankow Builders to build and operate the hoist, California Erectors, Bay Area Inc.; the believed designer and manufacturer of the hoist, Alimak Hek AB; and Kammerer’s employer who was subcontracted by California Erectors, Sheedy Drayage Co. All but Alimak Hek AB were dismissed from the case by the time of trial. Kammerer originally claimed the hoist was defectively designed and manufactured, and that Alimak Hek failed to warn of this defect. However, the manufacturing defect claim was not advanced because discovery revealed that the hoist was manufactured as designed. Alimak Hek AB denied manufacturing the subject hoist, claiming that the hoist was manufactured by Linden-Alimak AB, which was a different company. As a result, the parties agreed to have the issue of the identity of the manufacturing defendant tried before the court before jury selection. During discovery, plaintiff’s counsel made two separate trips to Sweden to depose employees of Alimak Hek and, through that testimony and records from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, counsel was able to establish that Alimak Hek AB was directly responsible as the entity which manufactured the hoist, independent of any issues of successor liability under a Ray v. Alad theory. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the court held that plaintiff’s counsel had proven direct liability. At the jury trial, the plaintiff’s experts testified that the hoist’s electrical circuitry violated American National Standards Institute requirements that existed when the hoist was manufactured in 1971. The experts explained that as early as 1963, ANSI required a backup electric circuit breaker to prevent just this type of problem in the event of a failure. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Alimak Hek AB was liable for a design defect under both the risk-benefit and consumer-expectation test. Counsel contended that the cost of adding an additional electrical component was minimal and that there was no risk in doing so. Moreover, counsel contended that an ordinary consumer, like Kammerer, would expect the hoist to stop when the stop button was depressed. Plaintiff’s counsel further argued that Alimak was negligent in failing to inform owners that the design of the mechanical power lever had been changed in subsequent models of the hoist. Counsel contended that although Alimak had issued a service message, the defendant could not prove that the message had been delivered to its customers. The defense’s expert for ANSI, who serves on the ANSI committee, testified at trial that the ANSI standards referenced by the plaintiff’s experts did not apply to the SCANDO 4000 and even if they did, the SCANDO 4000 met them by inclusion of the main power lever. However, plaintiff’s counsel countered by presenting deposition video clips of the defense’s ANSI expert, where he testified that ANSI did apply. Plaintiff’s counsel also presented video deposition testimony from the head of research and development for Alimak Hek AB, where he confirmed that ANSI applied. Defense counsel argued that regardless of whether the mechanical power lever was changed in subsequent models, Kammerer was able to locate and pull the lever in the lift. Counsel noted that the hoist passenger and Kammerer’s co-employee told a Sheedy employee that Kammerer pulled the lever. Counsel also noted that when the hoist was stuck at the top, the Sheedy employee climbed in using a ladder and found the lever to be in the down position, indicating that it had been pulled. However, Kammerer noted that he did not dispute whether the lever was pulled; he just had no recollection of doing it. Alimak Hek denied any negligence and denied the presence of a design defect. Instead, it claimed that Kammerer’s were caused by his own negligence, along with the negligence of his employer, Sheedy Inc. Specifically, the defense’s electrical engineering expert testified that the electrical component in the hoist failed because Sheedy Inc. utilized non-original equipment manufacturer parts and failed to perform maintenance as specified in the SCANDO 4000 manual. The expert noted that the operation manual instructed owners and operators to inspect the subject electrical component every 400 hours, but that the last inspection, according to Sheedy’s maintenance documents, occurred more than two years before the incident. He further noted that the component that failed had not been replaced in over three years. Thus, the defense’s mechanical engineering expert testified that Sheedy should have modernized the 33-year-old hoist to bring it into compliance with current Cal-OSHA guidelines. The expert further testified that Sheedy failed to adequately train Kammerer and had it done so, the plaintiff’s would have been avoided entirely because he would have understood that the hoist could never come off the top of the mast. In addition, defense counsel criticized the manner in which Kammerer performed his daily hoist inspections and accused Kammerer of disabling the mechanical lever that controlled the main power. Counsel further argued that Kammerer was negligent for “jumping” out of the hoist when he thought it was safer to remain inside, like his co-employee passenger did., Kammerer sustained a right elbow dislocation with transection of all arteries and veins, all muscle attachments distal to the elbow, the brachial artery as well as the median, ulnar and radial nerves. He also sustained open fractures of the right tibia and fibula and a head laceration. Kammerer was subsequently airlifted to Stanford Hospital, where his right dominant arm was amputated in a mid-humeral, above-the-elbow amputation. He also underwent open reduction and internal fixation with intramedullary nailing of the right tibia and fibula on the day of the accident. Kammerer remained at Stanford until Jan. 6, 2006, at which point he was transported to the acute rehabilitation unit of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital in Fulton for 10 days. As a result of the amputation, Kammerer started overusing his left hand, resulting in carpal tunnel syndrome in his left hand. He subsequently underwent a left hand endoscopic carpal tunnel release in 2012 with placement of Arthrex Mini Tight Rope implant. He was also fitted with a bioelectric prosthetic right arm. However, Kammerer claimed that he did not end up using the prosthetic very much because of its weight and because, combined with his medications, it caused too much sweating in his right arm stump, causing the prosthetic to become uncomfortable and slip off. Kammerer claimed chronic severe neuropathic pain of the right upper extremity, left thumb trapeziometacarpal joint arthrosis (secondary to overuse), myofascial pain syndrome involving right paraspinal muscles and right upper trapezii, low back pain, and a depressive disorder. However, he was able to return to work as a hoist operator in 2007 and continued working through the trial date. He walks with a slight limp and his chief complaint is phantom pain, which he describes as a 10/10 without medicine and 7/10 with medicine. Kammerer acknowledged that he does not require 24/7 care and lives by himself in a condominium, but his life care plan contemplated future assistance with household chores, meal preparation and work around the home. Thus, Kammerer sought recovery of damages, including a past wage loss of $116,526; a future wage loss of $0 to $1,304,890, depending on his work life expectancy; and future medical costs of $1,926,411. He also requested $2.4 million in economic damages, over $5 million in past non-economic damages and $6 million in future non-economic damages. The parties stipulated to past medical damages of $377,256. Defense counsel argued that Kammerer’s depression was caused by an ongoing dispute with his parents. However, according to plaintiff’s counsel, the experts retained by each side agreed that Kammerer suffers from a major depressive disorder. Defense counsel argued that Kammerer’s past wage loss was only $134,427 and would only suffer a future wage loss of $6,592. Counsel also argued that Kammerer’s future medical costs would only amount to $566,541. Thus, defense counsel suggested non-economic damages between $1 million and $1.5 million, and economic damages between $500,000 and $1 million.