Summary 2007 WY 134
Summary of Decision issued August 22, 2007
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Case Name: Rohde v. Smiths Medical, d/b/a Sims Deltec, Inc.
Citation: 2007 WY 134
Docket Number: 06-213
Appeal from the
Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Katherine L. Mead and Bradford S. Mead of Mead & Mead,
Representing Appellee (Defendant): Richard A. Mincer of Hirst & Applegate,
Issue: Whether the trial court erred when it held that the inference of defect rule was inapplicable to the instant case.
Facts/Discussion: Rohde sued Smiths Medical, the manufacturer of a venous access device which fractured after it was inserted into his chest to administer chemotherapy treatment, claiming the device was defective. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smiths Medical.
Standard of Review: The Court’s standard for reviewing the district court’s summary judgment is de novo. The Court examined the same material as the district court in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if proven, would establish or refute an essential element of a cause of action or a defense that a party has asserted.
In Ogle v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., the Court recognized a cause of action based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts for strict liability in favor of a party injured by a defective product. A plaintiff must show the product was defective when the seller sold it. Generally, a defective product is one which is not reasonably safe or is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. A plaintiff must show a defect in the product, which he may do either by presenting evidence of a specific defect or by inference. The inference of defect rule was recognized by the Court in Sims and required the plaintiff to present evidence that there was no abnormal use and no reasonable cause for the malfunction. Because Rohde did not present any evidence to the district court to counter Smiths Medical showing that compression was a reasonable secondary cause of the Port-A-Cath’s fracture he failed to meet his burden to discount reasonable secondary causes of the product’s malfunction as required by Sims. The Court discussed the two
Rohde also contested the district court’s refusal to apply the inference of defect rule in his case. He blended two distinct theories of strict liability: a defect in the product itself and failure to warn about an inherent risk of a non-defective product. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smiths Medical on Rohde’s failure to warn claim. On the record before the Court, the district court’s decision was proper because Rohde failed to present any evidence or any argument that a genuine issue of material fact existed on the adequacy of Smiths Medical’s warnings about the risk of fracture.
Holding: Smiths Medical was entitled to a summary judgment on Rohde’s claim that the Port-A-Cath was defective because he failed to fulfill his obligation, under the inference of defect rule, to present evidence creating a material issue of fact whether there were reasonable secondary causes of the Port-A-Cath’s failure. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rohde’s failure to warn claim because he presented no evidence that the warnings provided by Smiths Medical were inadequate.
Affirmed.
J. Kite delivered the decision.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/2qgu57 .
No comments:
Post a Comment