Federal Signal Found Liable for Q-Siren Related Hearing Loss
A Pennsylvania jury has awarded a Philadelphia firefighter $100,000 in damages against Federal Signal Corp. for hearing loss associated with the venerable Federal Q-Sirens. Firefighter Edward Smyl alleged that the Q-Sirens were negligently designed, unreasonably dangerous, and emited such an intense noise that they permanently damaged his hearing. Smyl had been a firefighter in Philadelphia from 1975 to 2007.
The verdict was rendered on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 after four days of deliberation. The jury concluded that the Q-Sirens were not defectively designed, but that Federal Signal was nonetheless liable to Smyl under a negligence theory. On March 4, 2010 Federal Signal announced that it will appeal the jury’s verdict.
Smyl’s suit was not the first filed by firefighters against Federal Signal alleging hearing loss. In fact, according to the web site AboutLawsuits.com, there are over 600 separate lawsuits are pending against Federal Signal in Pennsylvania alone, a claim I cannot independently verify. However, there are several other well known cases that have been filed against Federal Signal over the past few years, including cases in New York, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Missouri.
A New York court dismissed a similar products liability suit brought by four New York City Firefighters against Federal Signal for hearing loss, and the dismissal was affirmed by an appeals court in June 2009. Federal Signal was granted a summary judgment in January, 2010, in a suit brought by another Philadelphia firefighter, and obtained a stipulated entry of summary judgment in November, 2009 in a suit brought by two other Philadelphia firefighters.
A 2008 Illinois case involving 27 firefighter plaintiffs alleging hearing loss resulted in a defense verdict for Federal Signal. A second Illinois case involved the consolidated claims of nine firefighters, and resulted in a jury verdict for the firefighters in February, 2009. Federal Signal is appealing that verdict. The hearing loss claims of some 74 other Illinois firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed in the interim.
In regards to the Smyl verdict, Jennifer Sherman, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, General Counsel and Secretary, is quoted in the press as having said "We are very pleased that the jury rejected the claim that Federal Signal's sirens were defectively designed. This verdict is consistent with the many successes Federal Signal has had over the past several years in defending the Company's life-saving products. That said, we are disappointed that the jury proceeded to award damages to the plaintiff. We believe that the damage award cannot stand in light of the jury's verdict that our sirens are not defective, and we will seek to overturn that verdict."
I’m lost. How can you find the defendent “not guilty” but still award damages to the plaintiff? Seems the jury was looking for the easy way out to please both sides. Weird
Jason
Good point. I am quite certain that Federal Signal is going to argue that very issue on appeal!
Having only read the news reports on the lawsuit – my best guess is that the firefighter (his attorneys) made at least 2 allegations. First that the siren was dangerously defective and thus Federal Signal would be liable under a product liability theory. The second allegation was probably a straight negligence theory (ie. the manufacturer was negligent for putting such a product on the market without suitable warnings, education, precautions, etc. etc. etc.).
Again – that is just a guess. The bottom line is each allegation has certain elements to the case, and the jury did not believe the firefighter proved the product was dangerously defective, but did feel the manufactuere was somehow negligent.
Curt
I’m an audiology student who is looking at this case as a school assignment. Though I’m no lawyer, I think what the jury was saying that Mr. Smyl should be compensated for his hearing loss, but that the siren company shouldn’t be held to “strict liability” because the sirens weren’t defective. As far as the law is concerned that makes a difference, i.e., the hearing loss may been caused by the loud sirens, but there was nothing wrong with the sirens themselves, as they are functioning exactly the way they were intended to.
Cindy
It is a bit more complicated – but you are on the right track.
Strict liability applies to products that are found to be unreasonably dangerous. The jury concluded that the product was not unreasonably dangerous – but not because it functioned as designed. Something can function exactly as designed and be unreasonably dangerous. The focus for purposes of strict liability is on the danger posed by the device.
The negligence theory is usually a more difficult one for injured parties to prove – but in this case the jury found the manufacturer negligent. It could have been because there were things the manufacturer could have done/should have done to protect people’s hearing (warnings, instructions, installation recommendations, etc.). It could also be the jury misunderstood the jury instructions…