CVN screenshot of defense attorney Frank Hosley of Bowman & Brooke delivering his closing argument
San Bernardino, CA - A California state court jury delivered a defense verdict Thursday in a long-running products liability trial clearing Hitachi of all responsibility for a construction worker’s serious injuries, after a high-powered nail gun accidentally fired a nail into his brain, and the full trial was recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
The San Bernardino County jury returned their verdict two days after hearing closing statements in a trial that began last November. They rejected arguments made on behalf of plaintiff Justino Montiel that the Hitachi NR83A nail gun had a dangerous design defect due to lacking a “sequential trigger” that would only allow a single nail to fire after a discrete individual trigger pull.
Monteil’s attorneys argued the lack of a sequential trigger caused the gun to fire upward towards his face after he accidentally dropped it in 2019 while doing framing work, leaving him with a range of severe and permanently disabling neurological injuries. They sought up to $45.2 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, however Hitachi, sued under the name Koki Holdings America LTD, successfully argued the accident occurred because Montiel didn’t use the gun properly and not due to any design defect.
Montiel's attorney, Brian Beecher of Arash Law told CVN after the trial his team will appeal the verdict, citing a pre-trial ruling that precluded evidence of prior similar accidents.
Subscribers to CVN’s online trial video library get unlimited live and on-demand access to the full trial, including all witness testimony and digital images of exhibits and demonstratives. Along with this trial subscribers get access to hundreds more civil trials in a wide range of practice areas featuring many of the top plaintiff and defense trial attorneys practicing in the United States.
During his closing argument Beecher argued Hitachi knew for years that sequential triggers supposedly reduced the likelihood of an accidental nail discharge, which Beecher said occurs at the same velocity as a bullet fired from a 9 millimeter pistol.
CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Brian Beecher of Arash Law delivering his closing argument
Beecher argued the older-style “contact trigger” on the NR83A posed a serious risk to workers, since keeping the trigger depressed could cause the gun to inadvertently discharge multiple nails in rapid-fire mode. He told jurors other manufacturers sold nail guns with sequential triggers, and that a simple and relatively inexpensive recall campaign could have retrofitted the NR83A model.
“Hitachi allowed this to happen to Justino Montiel,” Beecher told the jury. “They chose to deliver the most dangerous design of their gun. Contact trigger only. Prone to violent rebounds making it extremely dangerous for inadvertent firings. They knew this was going to happen.”
An attorney for intervenor Redwood Fire and Casualty Company then gave a very brief closing argument, urging the jury to find in Montiel’s favor to help them recoup the more than $670,000 disbursed to Montiel so far in worker’s compensation payments.
Representing Hitachi, attorney Frank Hosley of Bowman & Brooke told jurors that despite the tragic nature of the accident it occurred entirely because of Montiel’s actions.
Hosley argued Montiel’s employer, construction company SoCal, never ensured Montiel had proper training to operate the gun, and that Montiel himself never reviewed the gun’s instruction manuel after buying it second-hand off a friend’s truck.
He suggested Montiel dropped the nailer because he took “shortcuts” on the job, specifically standing on an unsecured joist while operating a powerful nail gun with a strong kickback, a scenario Holsey suggested could predictably cause a worker to stumble and drop the gun.
Hosley insisted that if operated properly a nail gun with a contact trigger is no less safe than a gun with a sequential trigger. He framed that argument by telling jurors contact trigger nail guns remain on sale in hardware stores right now.
“The NR83A’s contact trigger is the same as the contact trigger as every single manufacturer’s framing nailer sold even today,” he said.
Beecher told CVN the decision to exclude references to past similar accidents involving nail gun recoils to the face severely constrained his case.
"The Judge forced the plaintiff to defensively agree to a stipulation that allowed the defendant to argue that the plaintiff was making up the concept of a recoil being able to reach the user’s face," Beecher said.
He confirmed discussions with jurors after the trial backed up those concerns.
"Jurors expressed that, without any evidence of the prior similar incidents, they were unable to find that the design of the product was a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries."
Attorneys for Hitachi did not respond to requests for comment.
Montiel was also represented by Greg Mohrman of Arash Law.
Hitachi was also represented by Mike Hurvitz of Nelson Mullins.
Intervenor Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance was represented by Robert Baker of Barnes & Thornburg.
The trial took place before Judge Joseph Widman.
The case is captioned Justino Montiel v. Koki Holdings America LTD., case number CIVSB2028102 in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
Email David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com
