CVN screenshot of plaintiff attorney Brian Beecher delivering his opening statement
San Bernardino, CA - A California state court jury heard opening statements Thursday in a lawsuit filed by a former construction worker who claims he suffered severe injuries after a supposedly defective nail gun fired a nail into his brain, and the full trial is being webcast and recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiff Justino Montiel sued Hitachi following the 2019 incident, which he accuses of manufacturing the NR83A nail gun with a defective design. His attorneys argue the gun had a dangerous rapid fire mode that can cause a nail to fire unintentionally, but Hitachi insists the NR83A is not defective, and that the accident occurred due to Montiel never reading the gun’s safety manual and not using the nailer properly.
The full trial, expected to run roughly two-to-three weeks, is being webcast both live and on-demand by CVN, including digital images of exhibits and demonstratives and all witness testimony.
During his opening statement on behalf of Montiel, now 56, attorney Brian Beecher of Arash Law told the San Bernardino County jury he would seek $10 million in medical damages and $30 million in non-economic damages, detailing the aggressive medical treatment Montiel needed to treat his neurological injuries. He explained that Montiel permanently lost sight in his right eye and is already experiencing early-onset dementia, a progressive condition with a grave prognosis guaranteed to worsen over time and leave him completely incapacitated.
Beecher insisted Hitachi, sued under the name of an American distributor in the case, knew about reported injuries associated with the NR83A and supposedly specifically knew about safety concerns with the rapid fire function. He accused the company of failing to issue any recalls or warnings due to the NR83A’s long-term popularity with consumers, evidenced by staying on the market for 40 years until finally being discontinued in 2003.
“This Hitachi nail gun, the NR83A, was defective and dangerous the moment it was made, and they knew it,” Beecher told the jury.
Beecher described how the NR83A has a “contact trigger” instead of a safer “sequential trigger” that forces the worker to pause between firing individual nails. He suggested without a sequential trigger the gun had a “live nose,” and when Montiel supposedly lost control of the gun and it swung towards his face there was nothing to prevent firing another nail, which Beecher said exits the gun at the same speed as a bullet from a 9mm pistol.
“Because of the live nose he could not prevent it from shooting another nail,” Beecher argued. “That nail went into his face, severed the optic nerve in his right eye, and it buried in his brain.”
Beecher repeatedly stressed other manufacturers sold nail guns with sequential triggers, and that the Hitachi model which replaced the NR83A had the safety device incorporated into its design. Despite not being released with a sequential trigger, Beecher said the NR83A could have easily been modified with a recall campaign.
“The thing about this case that is so tragic and heartbreaking and infuriating is that the whole thing, all of it, was so easily preventable by the sequential trigger,” Beecher emphasized. “It prevents absolutely everything.”
Robert Baker of Siegel Moreno & Stettler, an attorney for Redwood Fire and Casualty Company, which insured Montiel’s former employer SoCal Framing, also gave a brief opening statement urging the jury to find Hitachi liable for the accident. The insurer claims it has paid over $670,000 to date in workers compensation to Montiel.
Representing Hitachi, attorney Frank Hosley, Firm Chair at Bowman & Brooke LLP, repeatedly insisted to jurors the accident occurred entirely because of Montiel’s improper use of the gun, which Hosley said resulted from Montiel never reviewing the gun’s training manual.
“There is absolutely no defect in this nailer,” Hosley stated.
CVN screenshot of defense attorney Frank Hosley delivering his opening statement
Hosley explained how Montiel bought the nailer secondhand off a friend's truck in 2017 and used it continuously as his only nail gun until the accident in 2019. He also told jurors that Montiel presented himself as a “joist specialist” when applying for a job with SoCal.
Despite this, Hosley argued neither Montiel nor SoCal took any steps to make sure Montiel was properly trained to use the NR83A. He detailed how Hitachi even predicted the safety manual could be lost over the course of secondhand sales, so the company made a point of putting free versions online in English, Spanish and French.
Hosley then asked how a failure to warn claim could stand when the plaintiff supposedly didn’t look for any warnings, suggesting SoCal’s supposed failure to ensure this was done amounted to providing Montiel with an unsafe workplace, and that the supposedly unsafe technique Montiel used on the day of the accident was cautioned against in the instruction manual.
“Mr. Montiel never read anything about how to properly use this nailer,” Hosley said. “How can there be a failure to warn Mr. Montiel when he never read anything?”
Hosley questioned the credibility of plaintiff experts who will testify a sequential trigger refit was feasible. Besides the NR83A not being defective to begin with, Hosley argued nail guns with sequential triggers are cumbersome, and that when used safely the rapid-fire function is sometimes necessary on job sites. He urged jurors to rely on opinions of workers and builders familiar with these devices and not paid experts that “never earned their living using nailers.”
The trial is taking place before Judge Joseph B. Widman, and CVN’s live and on-demand coverage will continue for the duration of the proceedings.
The case is captioned Justino Montiel v. Hitachi America LTD., et al., case number CIVSB2028102 in San Bernardino County Superior Court.
Email David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com
