Summary 2013 WY 102

Summary of Decision August 29, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CHARLES FREDERICK SECREST v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0263

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Clinic; Emily Thomas, Student Director; and Jared D. Holbrook, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Holbrook.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2013

Facts: Following a jury trial, Charles Secrest (Secrest) was found guilty of aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, Secrest contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the court denied his motion to continue his jury trial to allow his newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial. Secrest further contends that the jury’s special verdict findings contain inconsistencies that require a new trial.

Issues: Secrest states the issues on appeal as follows: I. Was Mr. Secrest denied his constitutional right to representation by the attorney of his choice? II. Was the jury’s verdict defective?

Holdings: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Secrest’s motion to continue his jury trial to allow newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial, and there was no plain error in the alleged inconsistencies in the verdict form. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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 District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Katherine L. Mead and Bradford S. Mead of Mead & Mead, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Mead.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Richard A. Mincer of Hirst & Applegate, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Michelle L. Rognlien of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Argument by Mr. Mincer.

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 Illinois cases that Rohde relied upon, Weedon v. Pfizer, Inc. and Tweedy v. Wright Ford Sales, Inc.
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 .