FORT MYERS – A judge in the Fort Myers Division of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently granted a motion by Home Depot and equipment manufacturer Makita Inc. to disassemble a miter saw that a Florida man claims is allegedly defective and severed his arm.
John and Lori Landi had filed the lawsuit against Home Depot and Makita in state court but had the case removed to federal court in 2017. The Landis are claiming that the saw in question had manufacturer defects, which prevented it from functioning properly. To that extent, the plaintiffs are blaming the defendants for the injury.
Home Depot and Makita are contesting those claims, contending Landi's injury was as a result of him misusing the saw and/or altering it after purchase.
The saw subsequently underwent what is known as nondestructive testing, which effectively occurs when a tangible piece of evidence undergoes testing that does not permanently alter it. On the other hand, destructive testing happens when a test is done that "irreversibly alters" a piece of evidence.
When the defendants conducted a nondestructive assessment of the saw in question, they noted that the blade originally purchased with the saw was replaced. They also said the saw's blade guard was obstructed, a section of the saw known as the laser beam was reportedly out of place and debris was covering parts of the power tool, court filings said.
These discoveries prompted Home Depot and Makita to request that the saw be dissembled for further examination.
While both the defendants and plaintiffs agree that the saw needs to be dissembled to some degree for examination, the plaintiffs believe the intimate disassembly proposed by the defendants will irreversibly alter the saw, thereby compromising what the plaintiffs claim is the current evidence proving the saw is defective.
The defendants, however, argue that the findings of the nondestructive test suggest that the saw was damaged before the plaintiff's injury. They said dissemblance is “the only way” of fully investigating the saw and supporting their assertion.
They further argued that the saw can be photographed and videotaped so as to document the current condition of the equipment before it is disassembled. The defendants also contend that the saw can be reassembled so a jury can witness it in its “general condition.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mac McCoy accepted the defendant’s argument and said in his July 17 order that dissembling the saw for inspection might only cause a negligible degree of alterations, if any.
The court then granted the defendants’ motion to disassemble the saw for inspection.