Summary judgment may be granted where it is established that the plaintiff failed to read instructions and disregarded specific warnings. Wade v. Diamant Boart, Inc., Case No. 3:01 CV, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, June 17, 2005.

Wade was employed as a concrete cutter. Wade’s employer instructed him on the maintenance of the concrete cutting machines owned by the employer. The employer told Wade to grease the bearings on the saws’ arbor shafts with the engine running and the saw blade turning. Thereafter, the employer purchased a new concrete cutter manufactured by Diamant Boart. The saw came with warnings and an instruction manual. Wade noted the warnings on the cutter itself, but did not read the instruction manual. Wade’s hand was severed while cleaning the new cutter in the same manner he cleaned the other cutting machines. Wade commenced an action against Diamant Boart, claiming the cutter was defectively designed and that Diamant Boart failed to adequately warn of the dangers posed by the saw. Diamant Boart moved for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. The court held that summary judgment is appropriate where it is established that a plaintiff fails to read instructions and disregards specific warnings. Here, the court held that the proximate cause of Wade’s injuries was his disregard for the warnings on the machinery.