Summary
granting summary judgment where plaintiff could show only that the product broke and could not produce evidence that the product had a defect that caused the resulting injury
Summary of this case from Boucher v. Zimmer, Inc.Opinion
Civil No. 2:99CV0171C
September 20, 2000
ORDER
In this diversity tort action, Plaintiff Thomas Harris alleges that he was injured when a chair, allegedly manufactured by Defendant EAC Adams Corporation ("Adams Corp."), collapsed and caused him to fall. Harris brings three causes of action: strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The action comes before the court on Adams Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on all of Harris' claims.
Background
On or about March 31, 1997, Harris was injured when a chair he was seated in collapsed and broke, causing Harris to fall to the ground. Harris alleges that on that date, the chair appeared to be unaltered, had no visible flaws or defects, and appeared to be in "good operating condition." (Harris Aff. ¶¶ 8, 9.) Harris also contends that he was properly seated in the chair at the time of the collapse. (See id. ¶ 10.)
According to Harris, the broken chair was placed in an office at his work and marked with a sign with Harris' name and the instruction to "hold for litigation." (See Harris Depo. at 67; Harris Aff. ¶ 12.) For unknown reasons, the chair was removed, and its current location is unknown. (See Harris Depo. at 68; Harris Aff. ¶ 13.)
After his injury, Harris was given a different chair that he claims is substantially identical to the chair that broke. (See Harris Depo. at 68; Harris Aff. ¶ 14.) Harris believes that the replacement chair is the same make and model as the broken chair. (See Harris Depo. at 89; Harris Aff. ¶ 15.) Harris discovered that his new chair was manufactured by Adams Corp., and therefore believes that the chair that caused his injuries was also manufactured by Adams Corp.
Since Harris does not have the broken chair, he admits that the evidence at trial would be mostly testimonial: Harris and other people who saw the chair after it broke would testify as to the condition of the chair. While Harris has indicated that he does not intend to call expert witness to testify as to the condition of the chair, Harris does claim to have some evidence that other comparable chairs have similarly failed. (See Pl.'s Memo. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 6, 11.)
Adams Corp. moves for summary judgment on all of Harris' claims on the ground that Harris is unable to prove the necessary elements of those claims.
Standard of Review
A party is entitled to summary judgment on all claims as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Before the court can rule on a party's motion for summary judgment, the moving party must satisfy its burden of production in one of two ways: by putting evidence into the record that affirmatively disproves an element of the non-moving party's case, or by directing the court's attention to the fact that the non-moving party lacks evidence on an element of its claim, "since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986).
Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; mere allegations and references to the pleadings will not suffice. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Analysis
A. Strict Liability
In order to prevail on a claim for strict product liability, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the product was unreasonably dangerous due to a defect or defective condition, (2) that the defect existed at the time the product was sold, and (3) that the defective condition was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries." Lamb v. BB Amusements Corp., 869 P.2d 926, 929 (Utah 1993); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78-15-6 (2000). It is not enough to simply show that the product failed. See Burns v. Cannondale Bicycle Co., 876 P.2d 415, 418 (Utah Ct.App. 1994). Adams Corp. contends that it is entitled to summary judgment since Harris has no evidence of the first two elements.
The first element of a strict liability claim requires the plaintiff to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous due to a defect or defective condition. The only evidence Harris can present — his testimony and the testimony of other individuals that the chair broke — is insufficient, by itself, to survive a motion for summary judgment. See Ontiveors v. Danek Med. Group, Inc., 1999 WL 1129651, *4 (D. Utah Aug. 3, 1999) (unpublished decision) (granting summary judgment on a products liability claim when only evidence was the opinion of a doctor that the defendant's product caused injury because "[i]t is not enough to simply show that the product failed"); Burns, 876 P.2d at 417 ("[I]n order to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment, [the plaintiff] must provide some evidence that a defect existed at the time he bought the [product] and that the defect caused his injury. It is not enough to merely contend that a defect existed, show that an accident occurred, and assume the two are necessarily related."); Kleinert v. Kimball Elevator Co., 854 P.2d 1025, 1027 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (Granting summary judgment against elevator manufacturer because "[the plaintiff] merely alleged that because she was injured, the [product] must have been defective. She did not submit any evidence showing a defect or defective condition, let alone evidence showing the defect existed at the time of the sale or that the defect made the [product] unreasonably dangerous.").
The second element of a strict liability claim requires the plaintiff to show that the defect existed at the time the product was sold. Harris is similarly unable to provide any evidence of this element. Harris was apparently not the first or only user of this particular chair, and admits that he is "unaware of any evidence that the chair had not been modified, altered, or misused by some person or entity after the [chair] allegedly left [Adam Corp.'s] control. . . ." (Pl.'s Resp. to Reqs. for Admis. at 14.)
Harris' evidence shows only that the chair broke, not that the chair was unreasonably dangerous because of a defect or a defective condition, existing at the time the chair was sold. Harris does not have sufficient evidence to prove a claim of strict liability, and summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate for that claim. See Celotex Corp., 47 U.S. at 323-25.
B. Other Claims
Claims for negligence and breach of warranty also require that the plaintiff establish a causal relationship between a product defect and a resulting injury. See Ontiveors, 1999 WL 1129651, *5. Because Harris has failed to produce evidence that the chair had a defect that caused an injury to him and that defect existed at the time the product was sold, Harris is unable to establish such a relationship. Hence, Adams Corp.'s motion for summary judgment is granted on all of the claims in the complaint. Accord id.
Conclusion
The court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.