Harris v. Raymond Corporation et al

On December 21, 2018, in the United States, plaintiff Harris sustained catastrophic leg injuries while operating a stand-up forklift manufactured by The Raymond Corporation. The accident occurred in an Illinois warehouse when Harris was pinned between the forklift and a storage rack. Harris filed a federal diversity action against Raymond and its parent Toyota Industries Corporation, asserting claims for strict product liability, negligence, and failure to warn. The complaint alleged that the forklift lacked an adequate operator protection system, specifically a rear guard door, which would have prevented the operator’s body from being thrust outside the operator compartment during a collision. Defendants maintained that the forklift complied with all applicable ANSI/ITSDF standards, that a rear guard was neither required nor feasible, and that the incident resulted from Harris’s own improper driving and failure to maintain a safe clearance. Expert testimony centered on alternative design feasibility and industry customs.

The case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding The Raymond Corporation liable for a design defect. However, the jury attributed significant comparative fault to Harris, reducing the total damages award proportionately. The exact monetary judgment remains under seal, but post-trial motions were partially resolved, and the parties ultimately entered into a confidential settlement agreement while an appeal was pending.

The central dispute was whether the forklift was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous due to the absence of a rear guard door, and whether the manufacturer had a duty to provide such guarding beyond existing industry standards. The case also heavily turned on comparative negligence, with defendants arguing the plaintiff’s operational error was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

The case prompted renewed scrutiny of operator compartment guarding in stand-up forklifts, especially those used in high-density storage environments. Safety experts cited it in advocating for updated ANSI/ITSDF B56.1 standards. Multiple warehouse operators across the country voluntarily retrofitted rear guard doors on existing fleets, and some insurers began requiring enhanced guarding as a condition of coverage. The litigation also influenced manufacturer disclosure practices in marketing materials, emphasizing warnings about crush hazards in narrow aisles.