Yonts v. Easton Technical Products, Inc.

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 1/20/2015 - Eastons motion for summary judgment 56 is SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED in their entirety with prejudice. The previously scheduled settlement conference is now unnecessary.This is a final order. cc: Counsel(DAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV-535-JGH
DARCY YONTS

PLAINTIFF

v.
EASTON TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC.

DEFE
NDAN
T

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant, Easton Technical Products, Inc. (“Easton”), has moved for summary
judgment on what amounts to all remaining claims in the litigation. Due to the absence of any
expert testimony, Plaintiff concedes that he cannot support a claim under products liability or
negligence. And Easton now argues that Plaintiff lacks privity to assert implied warranty claims
and lacks standing to bring claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”). The
analysis of these remaining claims are fairly straightforward.
In Kentucky, the terms of a contract and statutory provisions govern express and implied
warranties. See Williams v. Fulmer, 695 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Ky. 1985). Here, no contract existed.
And Kentucky warranty statutes do not apply here because Plaintiff purchased the used arrows
through Craigslist from a private individual. See KRS 355.2-318. Plaintiff argues that the facts
themselves might create a warranty. The Court, however, finds no circumstances under which
Easton would have intended to provide a warranty for used arrows whose use and maintenance
were completely beyond its knowledge and control. Therefore, the Court finds no Kentucky law
which would create a warranty here.
The KCPA provides protection for a class of persons defined in KRS 367.220, which

contemplates an action by a purchaser against his immediate seller. Skillcraft Sheetmetal, Inc. v.
Kentucky Mach., Inc., 836 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. App. 1992). Thus, a secondhand purchaser is held
not to have an action in the KCPA. Williams v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. 390 S.W.3d 824, 829
(2012). The Court finds no other evidence that Easton made provisions or warranties intended to
reach secondhand purchasers, like Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is outside the protective scope
of the KCPA.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Easton’s motion for summary judgment is SUSTAINED
and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED in their entirety with prejudice. The previously
scheduled settlement conference is now unnecessary.
This is a final order.

January 20, 2015

cc:

Counsel of Record

2