SILVER et al v. BAD BOY ENTERPRISES LLC et al
Filing
74
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 11/05/2012. (CGC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MARK SILVER and LAURA SILVER,
Individually and as Next
Friends and Parents of Leslie
Erin Silver, a minor child,
*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 4:12-CV-5 (CDL)
*
vs.
*
BAD BOY ENTERPRISES LLC, BB
BUGGIES INC., and TEXTRON INC., *
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
On September 17, 2011, Leslie Erin “Elle” Silver (“Elle”)
was
driving
a
2008
serious accident.
Bad
Boy
Buggy
vehicle
when
she
had
a
As a result of the accident, Elle’s left
foot and part of her left leg were severed.
Elle’s parents,
Plaintiffs Mark and Laura Silver (“Plaintiffs”), brought this
action against Defendants Bad Boy Enterprises LLC (“BBE”), BB
Buggies Inc. (“BB Buggies”), and Textron Inc. (“Textron”).
their
against
Complaint,
all
manufacturing,
recall/retrofit.
Plaintiffs
Defendants:
failure
BB
assert
the
defective
to
Buggies
warn,
and
following
design,
and
claims
defective
failure
Textron
In
to
(“Textron
Defendants”) seek summary judgment, arguing that they cannot
be held liable under any of these theories because they did
not
design,
manufacture,
or
sell
the
2008
Bad
Boy
Buggy
vehicle and because they did not assume a duty to warn or a
duty to recall when BB Buggies acquired certain assets and
assumed certain liabilities of BBE.
For the reasons set forth
below, the Textron Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF
No. 57) is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendants’
motion
is
granted
as
to
The Textron
Plaintiffs’
defective
design, defective manufacturing, and failure to warn claims.
The Textron Defendants’ motion is denied as to Plaintiffs’
failure to recall claim.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Fed.
In determining whether a genuine dispute of
material fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
party
opposing
summary
judgment,
drawing
inferences in the opposing party=s favor.
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
all
justifiable
Anderson v. Liberty
A fact is material if
it is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the suit.
at 248.
Id.
A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence would
allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.
Id.
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The
record
viewed
in
the
Plaintiffs reveals the following.
light
most
favorable
to
Unless otherwise noted, the
facts are undisputed for summary judgment purposes.
I.
The Vehicle
The vehicle at issue in this action is a 2008 Bad Boy
Buggies Classic vehicle (“the Vehicle”).
Vehicle in September of 2008.
Hardin.
BBE manufactured the
The Vehicle was owned by Jim
Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts Ex. F, Silver Aff.
1, ECF No. 60-6; Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts Ex. L,
Hardin
Vehicle
Aff.
1,
along
ECF
with
No.
60-12.1
several
other
Mr.
Bad
Hardin
Boy
purchased
Buggies
the
Classic
vehicles directly from the factory in Natchez, Mississippi.
Silver Aff. 1; Hardin Aff. 1.
On September 17, 2011, Elle was driving the Vehicle.
She
was thirteen years old at the time.
The Vehicle suddenly
accelerated as Elle went into a turn.
E. Silver Dep. 77:23-
78:17, ECF No. 68-1 (“It was accelerating faster than what my
foot was pushing on the pedal.”).
over and fell on its side.
Then the Vehicle tipped
Id. at 107:5-108:21.
As a result
of the accident, Elle sustained serious injuries to her leg.
1
According to the Textron Defendants, however, BBE loaned the
Vehicle to Mr. Hardin’s business.
Brower Dep. 125:15-126:8.
At
this stage in the litigation, the Court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs
establishes that Mr. Hardin purchased the Vehicle.
3
II.
BB Buggies, Textron, and the Asset Purchase Agreement
Since the Vehicle was manufactured and sold by BBE, it is
important
to
understand
the
connection
between
BBE,
BB
Buggies, and Textron to evaluate the liability of BB Buggies
and
Textron.
corporation
BB
on
Buggies
August
31,
incorporated
2010.
as
Textron
a
is
Delaware
the
parent
corporation of BB Buggies.
BB Buggies agreed to purchase selected assets and assume
certain liabilities from BBE.
BB Buggies and BBE memorialized
the terms and conditions of the asset purchase in an asset
purchase agreement on October 12, 2010 (“Purchase Agreement”).
See generally Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. D., Rupp Decl. Ex.
2, Asset Purchase Agreement (Oct. 12, 2010), ECF No. 57-8 at
10-80 [hereinafter Purchase Agreement]; accord Pls.’ Statement
of Material Facts Ex. D, Unredacted Asset Purchase Agreement
Excerpts,
Agreement].
ECF
No.
60-4
[hereinafter
Unredacted
Purchase
This purchase was consummated after the Vehicle
in question was sold but before the accident occurred.
The
Purchase Agreement defines which assets BB Buggies agreed to
purchase and which assets BBE agreed to retain.
Agreement ¶¶ 1-2.
Purchase
The Purchase Agreement also defines which
liabilities BB Buggies agreed to assume from BBE and which
liabilities BBE agreed to retain.
Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
Specifically,
BB Buggies agreed to assume “all liabilities . . . other than
4
the
Retained
Liabilities,”
including
obligations and product warranties.
certain
Id. ¶ 3.
contractual
BB Buggies did
not agree to assume liability—and BBE retained liability—for
“all
Litigation
filed
prior to the Closing
against
and
Claims
noticed
to
[BBE]
Date, and all Litigation filed against
and Claims noticed to [BBE or BB Buggies] after the Closing
Date arising out of or related to any Products manufactured,
assembled
4(b).
or sold on or prior to the Closing Date.”
Id. ¶
Therefore, BB Buggies did not expressly agree to assume
any liability related to the Vehicle in question as part of
the
Purchase
Agreement
since
the
Vehicle
was
manufactured
prior to the closing date and the claim was asserted after the
closing date.
Moreover, Textron was not even a party to the
Purchase Agreement.
the
Purchase
Consequently, Plaintiffs cannot rely on
Agreement
to
support
their
claims
against
BB
Buggies and Textron.
BBE also retained liability for costs and expenses of any
Consumer Products Safety Commission Recall, National Highway
Traffic
field
Safety
campaign”
Administration
arising
recall,
out
of
or
alleged
BBE
“warranty
product
or
defects
relating to unwanted acceleration for products manufactured,
assembled, or sold within one year after the closing date.
Unredacted Purchase Agreement ¶ 4(c).
Although BBE remained
liable for the costs and expenses associated with a recall and
5
agreed to indemnify BB Buggies for those expenses as well as
any other costs and expenses associated with liabilities that
were specifically retained by BBE, the Purchase Agreement did
place control over any recall with BB Buggies.
The Purchase
Agreement states that BB Buggies “shall control the conduct of
any recall or retrofit campaign, regardless of whether such
campaign is subject to [BBE’s] indemnification obligation.”
Unredacted Purchase Agreement Excerpt ¶ 15(h).
The Purchase
Agreement further provides: “[BB Buggies’s] control of such
campaign shall not alter [BBE’s] indemnification obligations
hereunder.
[BB Buggies] shall provide [BBE] periodic reports
on the progress of any such campaign, and will advise [BBE] of
any
material
campaign.”
alteration
to
the
then
current
plan
for
the
Id.
BBE and its members also agreed in the Purchase Agreement
not to dissolve or liquidate BBE for at least twenty-four
months after the Closing of the Purchase Agreement, though
there is evidence that BBE actually did file for dissolution
during
2011.
Pls.’
Statement
of
Material
Facts
Ex.
J,
nor
BB
Certificate of Dissolution, ECF No. 60-10 at 2-3.
III. Manufacture of Bad Boy Buggy Vehicles
Before
the
Purchase
Agreement,
neither
Textron
Buggies manufactured, designed, sold, or distributed any Bad
Boy Buggy vehicle.
After the Purchase Agreement, employees of
6
BB Buggies and E-Z-GO, a division of Textron that produced
electric vehicles similar to the Bad Boy Buggy vehicles, took
over the manufacturing operations for Bad Boy Buggy vehicles.
Shortly
after
manufacturing
the
closing
operations
of
were
the
Purchase
transferred
Agreement,
from
BBE’s
manufacturing facility in Mississippi to E-Z-GO’s facility in
Georgia.
E-Z-GO now manufactures Bad Boy Buggy vehicles.
E-
Z-GO has made changes to the Bad Boy Buggy vehicles, including
changes to the vehicle’s hip restraint.
Also, various changes
to the throttle pedal design were implemented on the 2010 Bad
Boy Buggy Classic model.
IV.
Recalls of the 2008 Bad Boy Buggy Classic Model
There
were
Classic model.
three
recalls
of
the
2008
Bad
Boy
Buggy
All three recalls were conducted to install
components to prevent unintended acceleration.
The Textron
Defendants “admit that a 2008 Bad Boy Buggy Classic model may
have been subject to three recalls, depending on when it was
manufactured during this model year.”
Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’
Statement of Material Facts ¶ 17, ECF No. 68.
the first recall in 2008.2
BBE conducted
The second recall, which occurred
in 2009, was a voluntary recall by BBE in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
2
Pls.’ Statement of
The Textron Defendants contend that the changes indicated by the
2008 recall were likely incorporated into the Vehicle when it was
manufactured, but they did not point the Court to evidence on this
point.
7
Material
Facts
Ex.
G,
News
Release,
U.S.
Consumer
Product
Safety Comm’n, Off-Road Utility Vehicles Recalled by Bad Boy
Enterprises Due to Crash Hazard (Oct. 21, 2009), ECF No. 60-7.
That
recall
acceleration
addressed
and
a
“crash
applied
to
hazard”
Bad
Boy
due
Buggy
to
unexpected
Classic
model
vehicles with “serial numbers between 85004828 and 95010404.”
Id.
After the closing of the Purchase Agreement, Textron
“assumed maintenance of the recalls.”
ECF No.
72;
employee
Jeff
accord
Miller
id.
Brower Dep. 128:16-22,
at 105:20-24 (stating that Textron
became
responsible
for
completing
the
recalls).
The third recall, which occurred in 2010, was a voluntary
recall by BB Buggies in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts
Ex. H, News Release, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n, BB
Buggies Recalls Classic Bad Boy Buggies Again Due to Crash
Hazard (Dec. 22, 2010), ECF No. 60-8 [hereinafter 2010 News
Release].
Like the 2009 recall, the 2010 recall addressed a
“crash hazard” due to unexpected acceleration.
Id.
The 2010
recall
had
received
news
release
noted
that
BB
Buggies
“reports of unexpected acceleration, including reports of arm
and leg fractures.”
Id.
The 2010 recall involved “all Bad
Boy Classic model off-road utility vehicles manufactured from
early 2003 through May 2010.”
8
Id.
E-Z-GO, a division of
Textron, is currently handling the recalls.
Brower Dep. 43:9-
14.
The Textron Defendants cannot seriously dispute that a
2008 Bad Boy Buggy Classic vehicle that was purchased from the
factory was subject to one or more of the previously described
recalls.
E.g.,
Brower
Dep.
42:17-21,
111:19-22.
It
is
undisputed that approximately seventy percent of the vehicles
subject to one or more of the three recalls have not been
recalled.
Elle’s father, Mark Silver, “never received notice
from [the Vehicle’s owner] Mr. Hardin or from Bad Boy that
would indicate that there was a problem with the vehicle.”
Silver Aff. 2.
Mr. Hardin never received “any warning or
information regarding a Bad Boy recall for any of the Buggies
that [he] purchased.”
Hardin Aff. 2.
The Textron Defendants
did not point to any evidence that a recall notice was sent to
Mr. Hardin.
V.
Warnings Regarding the Bad Boy Buggy Classic Model
After the manufacturing of the Bad Boy Buggies vehicles
transitioned to E-Z-GO, BB Buggies began placing new warning
labels
on
newly
manufactured
vehicles.
According
to
Plaintiffs, these new labels were more explicit with regard to
the warning on use by minors.
Plaintiffs assert that if they
9
had been warned not to let a minor drive the Vehicle, they
would not have let Elle drive the Vehicle.3
Plaintiffs also assert that they should have been warned
about the potential for unintended acceleration.
As discussed
above, the Textron Defendants were aware of the hazard of
unintended acceleration.
See 2010 News Release (addressing
“crash hazard” due to unexpected acceleration).
The Textron Defendants admit that they made no effort to
issue
the
stronger
warnings
to
people
who
had
previously
bought the Bad Boy Buggy vehicles prior to the consummation of
BB Buggies deal with BBE.
3
Defendants assert that BBE had an 18-year-old restriction.
Defendants, however, point to no evidence that the restriction was
communicated to purchasers or users of the 2008 Bad Boy Classic
model. In their reply brief, the Textron Defendants argue that BBE
actually did provide such a warning in the 2008 Vehicle Manual for
the Bad Boy Classic.
Defendants represent that the 2008 manual
stated: “The Buggy should never be operated by persons 18 years of
age or under.” Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of their Mot. for Summ. J.
9, ECF No. 67. In support of this statement, the Textron Defendants
point to the Limited Warranty page of a document entitled “Important
Information” regarding Bad Boy Buggies.
Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp.
of their Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. L, Important Information re Bad Boy
Buggies, ECF No. 67-2 at 3. Though the Textron Defendants represent
that the document is the 2008 vehicle manual for the 2008 Bad Boy
Buggy Classic model, the document does not on its face establish
what year it was issued, and Defendants did not point to any
evidence to establish the year of the document.
Moreover,
Defendants did not point to evidence that Plaintiffs or Mr. Hardin,
the owner of the Vehicle, actually received the document.
Therefore, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that BBE
informed purchasers or users of the 2008 Bad Boy Classic model that
the vehicle should not be operated by children.
10
DISCUSSION
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims against the
Textron
Defendants
manufacturing,
for
failure
recall/retrofit.
defective
to
design,
defective
warn,
Plaintiffs
and
failure
concede
that
the
to
Textron
Defendants “are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
claims regarding the manufacture and design of the 2008 Bad
Boy Classic Model.”
Summ.
J.
1,
ECF
Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Renewed Mot. for
No.
58.
Therefore,
summary
judgment
is
granted in favor of the Textron Defendants on the defective
design and defective manufacture claims.
Plaintiffs’
remaining
claims
against
the
Textron
Defendants are for failure to recall and failure to warn.
At
the outset of this litigation, it appeared that Plaintiffs
intended
to
assert
claims
based
on
a
successor
liability
theory arising from BB Buggies’s purchase of the assets and
assumption of some of the liabilities of BBE.
summary
judgment
briefing
abandoned that theory.
reveals
that
However, the
Plaintiffs
have
Plaintiffs assert that whether the
Textron Defendants “are successor corporations to BBE is not
relevant”
to
their
failure
to
recall
and
failure
to
warn
claims because the Textron Defendants “assumed the duties to
recall and warn, both gratuitously and contractually.”
7.
Id. at
This narrows the Court’s analysis to whether sufficient
11
evidence exists to create a genuine fact dispute as to the
Textron Defendants’ alleged failure to recall the Vehicle in
question and/or to warn against the safety hazards associated
with it.
I.
Failure to Recall Claim
Plaintiffs argue that the Textron Defendants assumed a
duty to recall the Vehicle but failed to exercise ordinary
care in conducting the recall campaign.
Georgia law generally
imposes no duty upon a manufacturer to recall a product after
the product has left the control of the manufacturer.
Ford
Motor Co. v. Reese, 300 Ga. App. 82, 85, 684 S.E.2d 279, 28384 (2009).
An important exception to this rule exists: “if a
manufacturer chooses to recall a product voluntarily, Georgia
law imposes a duty upon the manufacturer to exercise ordinary
care in conducting the recall campaign.”
S.E.2d
at
283
“voluntarily
n.2.
agrees
In
to
addition,
notify
its
if
Id. at 85 n.2, 684
a
customers
product
of
a
dealer
product
recall and to mail notices provided by the manufacturer,” it
has a duty to exercise ordinary care in conducting the recall
program.
375
Blossman Gas Co. v. Williams, 189 Ga. App. 195, 198,
S.E.2d
117,
120
(1988).
This
rule
applies
“to
those
situations where the alleged tortfeasor’s performance is to be
substituted completely for that of the party on whose behalf
the undertaking is carried out.”
12
BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.
v. Jones, 252 Ga. App. 824, 831, 558 S.E.2d 398, 405-06 (2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, a reasonable jury could conclude that the
Textron
Defendants
program
related
vehicles.
to
undertook
the
a
2008
duty
Bad
to
Boy
conduct
Buggy
a
recall
Classic
model
First, BB Buggies agreed in the Purchase Agreement
to “control the conduct of any recall or retrofit campaign.”
Unredacted
Purchase
Agreement
¶ 15(h).
Second,
the
news
release issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
stated that the 2010 recall was “being performed by BB Buggies
Inc.,
which
Enterprises,
recently
LLC.”
acquired
2010
News
certain
Release.
assets
of
Third,
Bad
Boy
there
is
evidence that Textron and/or E-Z-GO, a division of Textron, is
actually handling the recalls.
24, 128:16-22.
Brower Dep. 43:9-14, 105:20-
Based on this evidence, a genuine fact dispute
exists as to whether the Textron Defendants undertook a duty
to conduct a recall program related to the 2008 Bad Boy Buggy
Classic model vehicles.
A reasonable jury could also conclude that the Textron
Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in conducting the
recall
program.
Again,
the
Textron
Defendants
cannot
seriously dispute that a 2008 Bad Boy Buggy Classic vehicle,
such as the one in question, was subject to at least one of
the
recalls
controlled
by
the
13
Textron
Defendants.
E.g.,
Brower Dep. 42:17-21, 111:19-22.
jury
could
conclude
that
Mr.
directly from the factory.
evidence
also
exists
Vehicle,
never
received
Evidence exists from which a
Hardin
purchased
the
Vehicle
Hardin Aff. 1; Silver Aff. 1.
that
a
Mr.
Hardin,
recall
the
notice.
owner
Hardin
And
of
the
Aff.
2.
Furthemore, the Textron Defendants pointed to no evidence that
a recall notice was ever sent to Mr. Hardin.
A genuine fact
dispute exists as to whether the Textron Defendants failed to
exercise ordinary care in conducting the recall program.
For all of these reasons, the Textron Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on this claim is denied.
II.
Failure to Warn Claim
Plaintiffs also assert that the Textron Defendants had a
duty to warn them of hazards with the Vehicle and that the
Textron
Defendants
Plaintiffs
contend
breached
that
the
this
Textron
duty.
Specifically,
Defendants
should
have
warned Plaintiffs not to let a minor child drive the Vehicle
and that the Textron Defendants should have warned them about
the potential hazard of unintended acceleration.
Under Georgia law, “the manufacturer of a product which,
to its actual or constructive knowledge, involves danger to
users, has a duty to give warning of such danger.”
Chrysler
Corp. v. Batten, 264 Ga. 723, 724, 450 S.E.2d 208, 211 (1994)
(emphasis
added)
(internal
quotation
14
marks
omitted).
“In
failure to warn cases, the duty to warn arises whenever the
manufacturer knows or reasonably should know of the danger
arising from the use of its product.”
Id.
(emphasis added).
This duty is “a continuing duty upon manufacturers to warn of
a
danger
arising
distribution.”
‘from
a
product
after
its
sale
or
Reese, 300 Ga. App. at 85, 684 S.E.2d at 284
(emphasis added).
arise
from
a
“A negligent failure to warn claim may
manufacturer’s
post-sale
knowledge
acquired
months, years, or even decades after the date of the first
sale of the product.’”
Hunter v. Werner Co., 258 Ga. App.
379, 383, 574 S.E.2d 426, 431 (2002) (quoting Batten, 264 Ga.
at 724, 450 S.E.2d at 211).
This duty to warn imposed upon product manufacturers has
been extended to include product distributors and sellers.
A
product distributor who has actual or constructive knowledge
of a danger that the manufacturer did not warn about has a
duty
to
warn
delivery.”
about
that
danger
“at
the
time
of
sale
and
Farmer v. Brannan Auto Parts, Inc., 231 Ga. App.
353, 354, 498 S.E.2d 583, 585 (1998) (internal quotation marks
omitted); accord Coosa Valley Tech. Coll. v. West, 299 Ga.
App.
171,
Georgia
178,
law
682
imposes
S.E.2d
“a
187,
duty
on
193
(2009)
product
(stating
manufacturers
that
and
sellers to warn consumers about dangers associated with their
products”
but
finding
that
parties
15
“who
neither
sold
nor
manufactured” the product had no such duty absent evidence
they assumed such a duty).
Significantly,
the
Textron
Defendants
manufactured nor sold the Vehicle in question.
neither
Plaintiffs
have cited no authority for the proposition that a party who
neither manufactured nor sold a product has a duty to warn of
dangers associated with the product.
Plaintiffs make a novel
argument that this duty arises in this case because Defendants
continued the manufacture of these vehicles upon the purchase
of BBE’s assets and because they assumed responsibility for
the recalls.
The Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument unsupported
by any legal authority and unpersuasive.
First,
Plaintiffs
contend
that
by
taking
over
manufacturing operations for new Bad Boy Buggies vehicles in
2010, the Textron Defendants assumed a duty to warn previous
customers
regarding
hazards
in
the
pre-Purchase
Agreement
vehicles that the Textron Defendants did not manufacture or
sell.
upon
Plaintiffs seek to impose this open-ended liability
the
Textron
Defendants
for
vehicles
they
never
manufactured, never sold, and never assumed liability for in
their purchase of BBE’s assets.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have
failed to cite any authority in support of this proposition,
and the Court has located none.
such
an
unsupported,
novel,
16
The Court declines to adopt
and
far-reaching
theory
of
liability and concludes that it is unlikely the Georgia courts
would do so.
Second,
responsibility
Plaintiffs
contend
for
recalls,
product
that
the
by
assuming
Textron
Defendants
assumed a duty to warn of dangers associated with the product.
In support of this argument, Plaintiffs point the Court to
Hamby v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-0937CAP, 2006 WL 5334599 (Feb. 14, 2006).
In that case, which is
not binding precedent, the court noted that it had previously
held that the plaintiff could not bring an independent claim
for failure to recall but that the claim would be subsumed
into the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim.
while
Plaintiffs
pointed
to
evidence
Id. at *1.
that
the
Here,
Textron
Defendants assumed a duty to recall with regard to 2008 Bad
Boy Buggies vehicles, they did not point to evidence that the
Textron
Defendants
assumed
a
duty
to
warn
of
hazards
associated with vehicles that the Textron Defendants neither
made nor sold, separate and apart from the duty to recall.
While it is likely that some of the evidence relevant to a
traditional failure to warn claim may overlap with Plaintiff’s
evidence supporting its failure to recall claim, the Court
finds that the two claims are separate and distinct claims.
Here, the Textron Defendants had no duty to warn of hazards
associated with the Vehicle in question except to the extent
17
that such warnings were necessary to conduct the recall using
ordinary and reasonable care.
For all of these reasons, the Court grants the Textron
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ failure
to warn claim.
CONCLUSION
As
judgment
discussed
motion
above,
the
(ECF No. 57)
Textron
Defendants’
summary
is granted as to Plaintiffs’
defective design, defective manufacturing, and failure to warn
claims.
The
Textron
Defendants’
motion
Plaintiffs’ failure to recall claim.
is
denied
as
to
The Court also denies
summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages
at this stage in the litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of November, 2012.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?