Santos-Rodriguez, et al v. SeaStar Solutions

Filing

OPINION issued by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. Published. [15-2171]

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-2171
BERNARDINO SANTOS-RODRÍGUEZ, G.S.G.; F.A.S.G.;
GREGORY SANTOS; MILAGROS LÓPEZ,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
SEASTAR SOLUTIONS, f/k/a/ TELEFLEX CANADA LTD.,
Defendant, Appellee,
RAÚL VIERA-TORRES; MARCELO COLÓN-TORRES; COOPERATIVA
DE SEGUROS MÚLTIPLES DE PUERTO RICO; UNKNOWN ENGINES
MANUFACTURER CORP.; UNKNOWN CONTROLS MANUFACTURER CORP.;
UNKNOWN DISTRIBUTOR CORP.; JOHN DOE; RICHARD ROE;
INSURANCE COMPANIES X, Y AND Z; SEA FOX BOAT COMPANY, INC.;
YAMAHA MOTOR MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Marcos E. López, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before
Torruella, Thompson, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.

Carlos A. Del Valle-Cruz, with whom Humberto Guzmán-Rodríguez
and Guzmán & Rodríguez were on brief, for appellants.
Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, with whom Aura MontesRodríguez, Christian Echavarri-Junco, Nayuan Zouairabani and
O'Neill & Borges LLC were on brief, for appellee.

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

June 8, 2017

-2-

Entry ID: 6098152

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 3

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

Plaintiff Bernardino Santos-

Rodríguez ("Santos") was injured in a boating accident when a
corroded rod end that was part of the boat's steering mechanism
failed.

Santos and several relatives sued Defendant Seastar

Solutions ("Seastar"), the manufacturer of the boat's steering
mechanism, alleging a design defect and a failure to warn.

Santos

appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Seastar.

We affirm.
I.

A.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background
1.

The Boating Accident
On June 25, 2010, Santos was riding in a twin-engine

boat in a bay near Guayama, Puerto Rico.

Raúl Viera-Torres

("Viera") owned the boat, which was equipped with a hydraulic
steering system manufactured in 2002 by Seastar (then known as
Teleflex Canada Ltd.).

The rod connecting the steering system to

the right motor had a ball-joint at the end, which broke while the
boat was in motion, resulting in a loss of steering and ejecting
Santos

from

the

boat.

resulting in paraplegia.

Santos

sustained

extensive

injuries,

None of the other plaintiffs, all

relatives of Santos, were in the boat.

Subsequent examination

revealed that the rod end failed because of corrosion.

-3-

Case: 15-2171

2.

Document: 00117164856

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

The Instruction Manual and the Boat's Maintenance
The steering system's instruction manual (the "Manual")

informed owners that "[b]i-annual inspection [of the steering
system] by a qualified marine mechanic is required" and instructed
them to "[c]heck fittings and seal locations for leaks or damage
and service as necessary."

The Manual did not include a specific

warning about corrosion of the rod end.
The boat's owner, Viera, acquired it second-hand.

He

did not perform maintenance on the boat, did not keep a maintenance
log or request maintenance documentation from the previous owner,
and did not read the Manual or any of the warnings affixed to the
steering system.

Viera hired third-party mechanics to maintain

the boat, but none of those mechanics ever brought the corroded
rod end to Viera's attention.
B.

Procedural History
On June 14, 2012, Santos and four relatives filed the

operative complaint, claiming diversity jurisdiction and, in the
alternative,

maritime

jurisdiction.

On

March

13,

2015,

the

district court granted summary judgment to Seastar. It first ruled
that federal maritime law, rather than the substantive law of
Puerto Rico, applied to the plaintiffs' claims. The district court
then determined that the plaintiffs' expert did not identify a
specific design defect in his expert report.

In doing so, the

district court ruled that the expert's deposition testimony that
-4-

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

Seastar had used a type of stainless steel that was prone to
corrosion in marine environments was inadmissible because it was
not raised in the expert's report.

The district court also ruled

that Santos could not show causation on his failure-to-warn claim
because there was no evidence that Viera or any person maintaining
the boat had ever looked at the Manual or the steering system's
warning labels.

Finally, the district court dismissed claims by

Santos's relatives, which were contingent on Santos's claims.

The

district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the
judgment on September 8, 2015.
The plaintiffs timely appealed both orders.
II.
"We

review

orders

ANALYSIS
for

summary

judgment

de

novo,

assessing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant
and resolving all reasonable inferences in that party's favor."
Bingham v. Supervalu, Inc., 806 F.3d 5, 9 (1st Cir. 2015). Summary
judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The plaintiffs claim that the district court erred by

applying federal maritime law, rather than the substantive law of
Puerto Rico.

We need not address this choice-of-law issue,

however, because even under the law of Puerto Rico, the plaintiffs

-5-

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 6

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

have not created a triable issue of fact on their claims for either
a design defect or a failure to warn.
A.

Santos Cannot Prove That Any Failure to Warn Caused His
Injuries
Under Puerto Rico law,
[a] plaintiff alleging failure to warn must prove[:]
"(1) the manufacturer knew, or should have known of the
risk inherent in the product; (2) there were no
warnings or instructions, or those provided were
inadequate; (3) the absence of warnings made the
product inherently dangerous; [and] (4) the absence of
adequate warnings or instructions was the proximate
cause of plaintiff's injury."

Cruz-Vargas v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 348 F.3d 271, 276 (1st
Cir. 2003) (quoting Aponte Rivera v. Sears Roebuck, 44 P.R. Offic.
Trans. 6, 144 D.P.R. 830 (1998)).

The district court ruled that

Santos had not shown causation because it was uncontested that
Viera did not read the Manual, and there was no evidence that
Santos himself, the mechanics who maintained the boat, or the
boat's

previous

owner

ever

read

the

Manual

or

that

anyone

communicated the warnings in the Manual to Viera.
Here

on

appeal,

the

plaintiffs

briefly

summarize

evidence that the Manual did not include any warnings about
corrosion of the rod end and their expert's conclusion that the
rod end was corroded and that this "caused loss of control of the
steering of the boat," leading to the accident and Santos's
injuries. They then assert, without citation, that "[u]nder Puerto
Rico law, this is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material
-6-

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

fact."

Page: 7

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

This argument does not address the district court's

conclusion that "no evidence has been brought [to] the court's
attention from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that
the omission of additional warnings caused Santos's damages."
Unless someone read the Manual, no warnings in it could have
prevented Santos's injuries.

Thus, even assuming that the Manual

did not contain "adequate warnings or instructions," that cannot
be "the proximate cause of [Santos's] injury."

Cruz-Vargas, 348

F.3d at 276; see Ramírez v. Plough, Inc., 863 P.2d 167, 177 (Cal.
1993)1

("Plaintiff's

mother,

who

administered

the

[drug]

to

plaintiff, neither read nor obtained translation of the product
labeling.

Thus, there is no conceivable causal connection between

the representations or omissions that accompanied the product and
plaintiff's injury."); Massok v. Keller Indus., Inc., 147 F. App'x
651,

660

(9th

Cir.

2005)

(applying

California

law)

("[The

plaintiff] admits that he did not read the warnings and so the
sufficiency

of

[the

manufacturer's]

warnings

is

therefore

irrelevant.

[The plaintiff's] claim based on failure to warn is

without merit.").

1

"[T]he Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has consistently relied upon
California Supreme Court precedent when considering issues raised
by the doctrine of strict product liability." Acosta-Mestre v.
Hilton Int'l of P.R., Inc., 156 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 1998) (citing
Collazo–Santiago v. Toyota Motor Corp., 149 F.3d 23, 25 (1st Cir.
1998)).
-7-

Case: 15-2171

B.

Document: 00117164856

Page: 8

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

Santos Cannot Prove That Any Design Defect in the Steering
Rod Caused His Injuries
To prove a products liability claim under Puerto Rico

law, Santos must show that:

"(1) [Seastar's] equipment has a

defect, in any of its modalities; (2) the defect existed when the
product left [Seastar's] control; (3) [Seastar] is in the business
of selling this type of product; (4) the defect was the adequate
cause of [Santos's injuries]; and (5) [Viera] use[d] the product
in a manner that was reasonable and foreseeable by [Seastar]."
Rodríguez-Méndez v. Laser Eye Surgery Mgmt. of P.R., Inc., 195
D.P.R. 769, translation at 23-24 (June 15, 2016).2

In Rodríguez-

Méndez, the plaintiff developed an eye issue after he received
laser eye surgery, and he sued the manufacturer of the surgical
equipment for selling a defective product.

Id. at 3.

After

discovery, the manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing,
among other things, that the plaintiff had not identified a
specific defect in the surgical equipment.

Id. at 5.

The court

of first instance denied summary judgment, but the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court reversed and ordered dismissal.

Id. at 25.

It

determined that the plaintiff's reliance on the presence of metal
particles in his eye was insufficient "to establish that [the
surgical] equipment suffer[ed] from a manufacturing defect [or]

2

All citations are to the certified translation filed by Seastar
at Docket No. 69, Exhibit A.
-8-

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

was defectively designed."

Page: 9

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Id. at 24.

Entry ID: 6098152

Rather, the plaintiff's

evidence established only "that it is not normal to fin[d] metal
particles in one's eye," and that showing was "deficient and
insufficient" to survive summary judgment.

Id. at 23.

Here, the plaintiffs' expert reported that the rod end
was corroded and that this corrosion "was the main cause for the
failure of the subject hydraulic steering cylinder rod end."

No

admissible evidence shows that the corrosion was because of some
defect in the product's design.

In fact, the plaintiffs' expert

report focuses almost exclusively on whether the Manual included
adequate warnings; it does not address whether the product was
properly designed.3
The plaintiffs assert that the rod end "failed to perform
as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect" and that their
expert

"reported

corrosiveness."

that

the

product's

design

was

subject

to

Their expert report, however, stated only that

Seastar was "required to warn against all foreseeable hazards . . .
associated with the subject hydraulic steering cylinder rod end's

3

At his deposition, the plaintiffs' expert testified that Seastar
used a type of stainless steel that "is not a good selection for
[a] marine environment," rather than a less-corrosive type of
stainless steel. But the district court ruled that that testimony
was inadmissible because it constituted a new theory not addressed
in the plaintiffs' expert report. On appeal, the plaintiffs "rely
. . . simply on the expert report, and do without the deposition
testimony."
-9-

Case: 15-2171

Document: 00117164856

Page: 10

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

interchangeability, corrosiveness, preventive maintenance, and the
risks associated with its failure."

It does not say that the rod

end's design made it particularly susceptible to corrosion.
The plaintiffs' real argument is that the rod end failed,
and that this is sufficient evidence of a design defect.

This is

precisely the type of showing rejected in Rodríguez-Méndez, where
the plaintiffs' only evidence was that something was wrong -- he
had metal in his eye.

195 D.P.R. 769, translation at 23.

Here,

the plaintiffs' only showing is that something was wrong -- the
rod end failed.4

Thus, the plaintiffs did not present evidence

that Seastar's design of the rod end was defective.5

4

The plaintiffs cite to Pérez-Trujillo v. Volvo Car Corp.
(Sweden), 137 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 1998), for the proposition
that "the malfunction itself is circumstantial evidence of a
defective condition." This fails, first, because it is contrary
to Rodríguez. Second, Pérez-Trujillo was a manufacturing defects
case, in which the defendant argued that its product could not
have malfunctioned in the way described.
But an eyewitness
directly observed the product malfunction -- an airbag deploying
under normal driving conditions -- and the Court stated that
"direct observation of the malfunction itself is circumstantial
evidence of a defective condition." Id. (emphasis added).
5

The plaintiffs also assert that because Santos was an invitee,
he was not responsible for the boat's maintenance.
Thus, they
reason, if "the accident was attributable to the owner's negligence
in maintenance, and not to its design," it was Seastar's burden to
cross-claim against Viera. The plaintiffs cite no authority for
the proposition that Seastar could be liable for Viera's negligence
after he purchased the steering system, and Rodríguez-Méndez
forecloses this possibility. 195 D.P.R. 769, translation at 24
(holding that the manufacturer would not be liable if the doctor
"departed from the reasonable use of the surgical machinery or did
not give the require[d] maintenance").
-10-

Case: 15-2171

C.

Document: 00117164856

Page: 11

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Entry ID: 6098152

The Plaintiffs' Derivative Claims Cannot Survive
As Santos's four family members admit, their claims

under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code -- Puerto Rico's
general tort statute -- are derivative of Santos's claims, and so
if his "claim fails, so too do[] the relative[s'] derivative
claim[s]."

González Figueroa v. J.C. Penney P.R., Inc., 568 F.3d

313, 320 (1st Cir. 2009).
granted

summary

judgment

Because the district court properly
on

Santos's

underlying

claims,

his

relatives' derivative claims cannot succeed.
III.
For

the

court's judgment.

foregoing

CONCLUSION
reasons,

we

affirm

the

district

The parties shall bear their own costs.

Affirmed.

-11-