Broadmoore Golf Club LC v. E-Z-GO

Filing 100

ORDER granting 41 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 12/19/2012. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BROADMOORE GOLF CLUB, LC and
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
E-Z-GO, A DIVISION OF TEXTRON
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-556-M

ORDER
This case is scheduled for trial on the Court’s January 2013 trial docket.
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 1, 2012. On
October 29, 2012, plaintiff Broadmoore Golf Club, LC (“Broadmoore”) filed its response, and on
November 15, 2012, defendant filed its reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes
its determination.
I.

Introduction
On July 1, 2009, a fire occurred at Broadmoore’s golf facility in Moore, Oklahoma.

Broadmoore alleges that the fire destroyed one of the buildings at the golf facility.1 Broadmoore
contends that the fire was caused by a RXV gas powered golf cart (“Golf Cart”) manufactured by
defendant. Plaintiffs have brought claims against defendant for products liability and negligence.
Defendant has now moved for summary judgment in its favor.

1

Specifically, the fire destroyed a commercial building occupied as a golf cart parking
facility, snack bar, and golf pro shop.

II.

Summary Judgment Standard
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving
party is entitled to summary judgment where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this standard, [the Court] examines
the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep’t Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th Cir.
1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden
of doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.
Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
III.

Discussion
A.

Products Liability Claim

To prevail on a products liability claim, a plaintiff must establish the following three
elements: (1) that the product was the cause of the injury; (2) that the defect existed in the product
at the time it left the manufacturer, retailer, or supplier’s possession and control; and (3) that the
defect made the product unreasonably dangerous to him or his property. See Kirkland v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1363 (Okla. 1974).

2

Regarding causation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that “[a] manufacturer’s
products liability plaintiff need not exclude all other possible conclusions. However, the mere
possibility that a defect caused the injury is not sufficient.” Dutsch v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 845 P.2d
187, 191 (Okla. 1992). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further held that the mere happening of
an accident does not raise any presumption of defectiveness in the product involved in the accident.
Kirkland, 521 P.2d at 1363. Additionally, “[p]roper expert opinion of the defect and its existence
at time of injury may suffice, but expert opinion should not evade the factual determination of the
proofs . . . to be borne by the Plaintiff.” Id. Finally,
[t]he practicing lawyer identified with the Plaintiff will seldom be
able to produce actual or absolute proof of the defect so necessary in
manufacturers’ products liability since this information in the final
analysis is usually within the peculiar possession of the Defendant.
Carefully prepared interrogatories or depositions may be helpful to
a Plaintiff, but more than likely Plaintiff may be forced to rely on
circumstances and proper inferences drawn therefrom in making his
proof. We note that in some accidents the surrounding circumstances
and human experience should make Plaintiff’s burden less arduous;
he may be able to sustain his burden, but more than likely if the
Defendant is a manufacturer or assembler of some highly complex
product such as an automobile, human experience will play little or
no part in reducing his burden, and he will be relying upon the
inference drawn from circumstantial evidence.
Id. at 1363-64.
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions. Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and viewing all reasonable inferences in
plaintiffs’ favor, the Court finds plaintiffs have not set forth sufficient evidence to establish their
products liability claim. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not set forth sufficient
evidence that the Golf Cart was the cause of the fire. Richard Taylor, plaintiffs’ expert regarding
the origin and cause of the fire, has not rendered any definitive conclusion that the Golf Cart was
3

the cause of the fire. In his expert report, Mr. Taylor concludes that “[t]he area of origin was located
in the southwest corner of the parking alcove that was located at the south end of the basement golf
cart parking facility,” and that “[t]he fire involved the golf cart parked in this corner and then spread
upward and laterally from this corner, involving much of this room and spreading into the basement
hallway.” Expert Report of Richard Taylor at p. 29-30, attached as Exhibit 2 to Broadmoore’s
Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Additionally, in his deposition, Mr.
Taylor testified that he was not going to testify, in any way, shape, or form that the Golf Cart started
the fire. See Deposition of Richard Taylor at p. 109, ln. 14-17, attached as Exhibit 3 to
Broadmoore’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Further, Daniel Wells, plaintiffs’ expert who was retained to examine the Golf Cart and
determine whether it was the cause of the fire, determined that the Golf Cart was so badly damaged
by the fire that he could not determine the precise defect that caused the fire. In his report, and in
reaching his opinions, Mr. Wells relied upon a determination that the area of origin of the fire was
the back quarter section on the driver’s side of the Golf Cart, allegedly reached by Mr. Taylor and
Jeff Lindsey, the Moore Fire Marshall. However, Broadmoore has presented no evidence that any
such determination was ever made.
While it is appropriate for a plaintiff to rely on circumstantial evidence in order to prove its
products liability claim, in the case at bar, plaintiffs are relying on the same circumstantial evidence
to prove all three required elements of their products liability claim. This seems to this Court to be
tantamount to saying that the mere fact that there was a fire in the area of the Golf Cart proves or
raises a presumption that the Golf Cart was defective at the time it left defendant’s possession and
control, that the Golf Cart was unreasonably dangerous, and that the Golf Cart was the cause of the

4

fire. The Court finds the fact that a fire started in the area where the Golf Cart was located, by itself,
is simply insufficient to establish all of the required elements.
Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiffs’
products liability claim.
B.

Negligence Claim

To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish the following three elements: “1)
a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury; 2) the failure of the defendant
to perform that duty; and 3) injury to the plaintiff resulting from such failure.” Woods v. Fruehauf
Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770, 775 (Okla. 1988). Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ inability to prove
a products liability claim also means that plaintiffs have failed to prove the essential elements of
negligence. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions, and viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and viewing all reasonable inferences in
plaintiffs’ favor, and for the reasons set forth in Section III.A., the Court finds that plaintiffs have
not set forth sufficient evidence to establish their negligence claim. Accordingly, the Court finds
that defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ negligence claim.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [docket no. 41].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2012.

5