Peterson et al v. Arrow Plastic Manufacturing Co., et al

Filing 42

RULING as to the 41 Exparte Motion for Clarification of the 40 Ruling denying summary judgment, as described herein. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 3/1/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID PETERSEN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 11-156-JJB
ARROW PLASTIC MANUFACTURING
CO., ET AL.

RULING ON EX PARTE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This matter is before the Court on an ex parte motion for clarification (doc.
41) of the Court’s recent ruling denying summary judgment (doc. 40). Defendant
Arrow seeks clarification as to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
available to all four of the claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
(“LPLA”) or, if not, to which claims it is available. The parties are aware that, in
order to be considered unreasonably dangerous, a product must be so because
of (1) a defect in construction or composition; (2) a defect in its design; (3)
inadequate warnings; or (4) it does not conform to an express warranty. La. R.S.
9:2800.54(B). In this case, Plaintiff has presented no evidence of (1), (3), or (4)
from that list. Therefore, the Court should have noted that summary judgment on
those three claims is GRANTED while it is DENIED as to the design defect claim.
The parties are advised that in its previous rulings the Court at no time has
ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will be available to the Plaintiff to allow
the jury to infer negligence on the part of the Defendant. Rather, the Court has
twice ruled that the determination of its applicability will be made at trial. More

specifically, the determination will be made when Plaintiff requests a jury
instruction on res ipsa. Whether the Court agrees to give the instruction will
depend on the evidence Plaintiff puts on at trial, and whether the three-part
Cangelosi test is met.1
Res

ipsa

loquitur

is

an

evidentiary

doctrine

that

gives rise to a permissible inference of liability, but does not mandate that liability
be found.” Williams v. Emerson Electric Co., 909 F.Supp 395, 398 (M.D. La.
1995) (internal citations omitted). The doctrine does not create a cause of action.
Id.

Rather, it applies in situations where direct evidence is lacking. For the

doctrine to apply, the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence “must exclude other
reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty.

However, it is not

necessary to negate all possible causes.” Id. (citations omitted). The doctrine
has a narrow application. Plaintiff will have to prove at trial all of the elements of
a products liability case under the LPLA design defect claim. Res Ipsa loquitur
will simply allow the jury to infer causation—only one of the elements--if it
chooses to.
As for the matters of Plaintiff’s expert and Defendant’s request for
sanctions, those matters are not properly before the Court in this motion.
For these reasons, the Court’s prior ruling (doc. 40) is clarified to provide
that summary judgment on claims brought under La. R.S. 9:2800.54(B)(1), (3),

1

The res ipsa jury instruction is found at 18 La. Civ. L. Treatise, § 3.18.

2

and (4) is GRANTED. Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under section (2)
of the statute, however, is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 1, 2012.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3