Gregory v. Parker Hannifin Corporation et al

Filing 146

ORDER denying 98 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 116 Defendant Lorimor's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 12/24/2014. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CAMERON GREGORY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, )
also known as the WALTHER COMPANY, )
MAXBAR INC.,
)
H. LORIMER CORPORATION, and
)
CARL KURT WALTHER GmbH
)
& CO. KG,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-13-01031-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 2,
2014. On October 23, 2014, and October 29, 2014, defendants Parker Hannifin Corporation
(hereinafter, “Parker”), Maxbar, Inc. (hereinafter, “Maxbar”), H. Lorimer Corporation
(hereinafter, “Lorimer”), and Kurt Walther Gmbh & Co., KG (hereinafter, “Walther”) each filed
separate response briefs. On November 03, 2014, plaintiff filed his reply. In addition, on October
23, 2014, Lorimer filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment.1 On November 07, 2014,
plaintiff filed his response, and on November 14, 2014, Lorimer filed its reply. Based upon the
parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.

1

Lorimer moves for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff cannot identify Lorimer as the
provider of the quick disconnect that he claims caused his injury, Lorimer never sold SpirStar
valve repair kits to Kemper, and Kemper is a sophisticated, knowledgeable, and experienced user
of high pressure component parts. Thus, Lorimer asserts that it did not owe plaintiff a duty to
warn. Because Lorimer’s assertions are substantially similar to the issues raised by plaintiff’s
partial motion for summary judgment and defendants’ response briefs, the Court addresses
Lorimer’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment in this same Order.

I.

Introduction
Plaintiff’s instant law suit arises out of an injury he suffered when using a high-pressure

quick connect coupler during the scope of his employment. Walther manufactures high-pressure
quick connect couplers, Parker-Hannifin Polyflex, a product used in hydraulic applications
involving high fluid pressure. Maxbar obtains these quick connect couplers from Walther and
sells them to Parker. In addition, Maxbar removes the internal components from some of these
Walther manufactured quick connect couplers and repackages and sells them exclusively to
Parker as quick disconnect coupler repair kits. In turn, Parker sells these quick couplers and
repair kits to nonparty Aaxion Incorporated, who in turn sells the couplers to Lorimer. Lorimer
then sells the items to plaintiff’s employer Kemper and Valve Fitting Corporation (“Kemper”).
Plaintiff was injured when testing a manifold trailer using a particular quick disconnect
coupler. This particular Walther manufactured quick coupler was intermingled with a SpirStar
internal component, a check valve. However, the Walther manufactured quick connect check
valve and the SpirStar quick connect check valve were slightly different sizes and did not fit
together as they should. As a result, when plaintiff used the Walther manufactured coupler that
was intermingled with a SpirStar check valve, the gauge gave a false reading of zero pressure
leading plaintiff to believe the trailer was depressurized. Thus, when plaintiff proceeded to
disconnect the hose connected to the trailer from the pump, plaintiff suffered serious injuries
when an explosive volume of air and water escaped. Plaintiff now brings this products liability
claim against defendants Walther, Maxbar, Parker, and Lorimer.
II.

Standard of Review
“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

2

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, 107172 (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
Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on his 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). A product is unreasonably dangerous if it is “dangerous to an
extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it,
with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Swift v. Serv.
Chem., Inc., 310 P.3d 1227, 1331 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).

3

In the case at bar, plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to provide an adequate warning.
“A product may be defective due to defective design or manufacture, but a product may also be
defective if a manufacturer fails to provide the user adequate warning of inherent dangers from
all foreseeable uses of a product.” Torres v. Cintas Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1215-16 (N.D.
Okla. 2009) (citing Prince v. B.F. Ascher Co., Inc., 90 P.3d 1020 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004);
Edwards v. Basel Pharm., 933 P.2d 298, 300 (Okla. 1997)). However,
The sophisticated purchaser exception, also referred to as the bulk supplier
defense, absolves suppliers of the duty to warn purchasers who are already aware
or should be aware of the potential dangers. Atkin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d
1030, 1037 (10th Cir. 1998) (applying Oklahoma law) (citing O'Neal v. Celanese
Corp., 10 F.3d 249, 251–52 (4th Cir. 1993)) . . . . The sophisticated purchaser
defense only applies “when the danger related to the particular product is clearly
known to the purchaser.” 2 Madden & Owen, § 16:4. If the danger is clearly
known to the purchaser, “[t]hen there will be no obligation to warn placed upon
the supplier. Instead it becomes the employer’s responsibility to guard against the
known danger[.]” Id. In determining the appropriateness of relying upon a
purchaser to provide cautionary information to the ultimate users, [t]here is no
general rule as to whether one supplying a product for the use of others through
an intermediary has a duty to warn the ultimate product user directly or may rely
on the intermediary to relay warnings. The standard is one of reasonableness in
the circumstances. . . . The sophisticated purchaser defense was applied by the
Tenth Circuit in Atkin, 156 F.3d at 1037 . . . . The Tenth Circuit explained . . . .
Oklahoma law clearly imposes a “should have known” standard . . . applicable to
“knowledgeable purchasers.” This is tantamount to the familiar “sophisticated
purchaser defense” exception which is based upon the principles set forth in the
Restatement (Second) of Torts. This exception absolves suppliers of the duty to
warn purchasers who are already aware or should be aware of the potential
dangers . . . . “[A] duty to warn ariss only when there is unequal knowledge with
respect to the risk of harm.”
Tate v. Statco Eng'g & Fabricators, Inc., No. 12-CV-0002-JHP, 2013 WL 6185476, at *6-7
(E.D. Okla. Nov. 25, 2013).
Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on his products liability claim against
defendants on the grounds that defendants placed a defective product into the stream of
commerce. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to provide use instructions or a

4

warning reasonably calculated to reach the ultimate consumer when they manufactured and/or
supplied quick couplers and repair kits without any adequate warnings against interchanging
coupler parts manufactured and/or supplied by others.
While each defendant has filed its own response brief, the defendants’ positions can
generally be categorized into the following: (1) defendants owed no duty to warn against
intermingling coupler components because intermingling was not foreseeable and Kemper was a
sophisticated/knowledgeable purchaser/user; (2) defendants had no duty to provide warning as to
intermingling between HP and other non-HP coupler parts, such as the SpirStar components; (3)
the product was not unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary user as plaintiff was a user with
expert knowledge about the products and had access to warnings that spoke of the danger; (4)
certain defendants in the distribution chain were knowledgeable purchasers who did not need a
warning and were in a better position to provide effective warnings to the end user; and (5) the
adequacy of the warnings included in the use instructions, Parker’s Safety Catalogue, and on the
pressure hose are a question of fact. Lorimar additionally contends that plaintiff cannot show that
Lorimer provided the couplers or repair kits at issue.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff has not
submitted sufficient undisputed evidence warranting partial summary judgment on his failure to
warn claim. Among other things, plaintiff has submitted some evidence indicating that
defendants manufactured and/or supplied the quick coupler and the repair kits at issue, that the
components at issue did not have any serial numbers or brand name on them, and that defendants
did not provide warnings that the internal parts of these products may look the same as other
similar products and should not be intermingled with internal parts from other couplers
manufactured by other companies. In response, defendants, among other things, have submitted

5

evidence indicating that Kemper is one of the biggest manufacturers of high pressure
components for the fracking industry, thereby, potentially qualifying as a knowledgeable
purchaser/user that did not need such a warning; plaintiff himself was a knowledgeable user that
did not need a warning against intermingling because he was a crew leader on a crew that
worked on Parker products in their work recertifying high pressure oil field equipment;
defendants did in fact provide a safety guide warning against intermingling; and a warning
affixed to the hose plaintiff was using warned users to read and understand the safety guide.
Plaintiff replies that it is foreseeable that intermingling would occur; Kemper is not a
sophisticated purchaser because it does not manufacture pressure couplers and repair kits – it
simply uses them; plaintiff and his employer would not have been able to distinguish the internal
components regardless of their sophistication level, and the safety guide mentioned was only
provided in bulk shipments and none of the defendants took reasonable efforts to make sure this
safety guide was passed on to plaintiff’s employer. Based upon the above submitted evidence,
the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his failure to warn claim
should be denied.
Further, the Court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact on the issue of
whether Lorimer provided the actual parts at issue. Defendant Lorimer asserts, in part, that
plaintiff cannot show that Lorimer supplied the quick disconnect coupler that plaintiff alleges
was defective. Defendant cites to testimony from several depositions, including John Murray’s,
the Quality Systems Manager for Kemper, testimony that he does not know who supplied the
quick disconnect at issue and that Kemper purchases quick disconnect from various suppliers not
just Lorimer. In addition, Lorimer asserts that it does not sell SpirStar valve repair kits to
Kemper, or anyone else. Lorimer also submits a purchase order form that appears to indicate

6

Kemper purchased some couplers from Industrial Specialties. In contrast, plaintiff asserts that all
the other co-defendants indicate that Lorimer provided these products to plaintiff’s employer;
there is no record showing Kemper obtained coupler repair kits from any other distributor expect
Lorimer; and that Lorimer provided in excess of 95% of all couplers and 100% of all the repair
kits. Plaintiff states that although the record shows that Kemper purchased 24 couplers from
Industrial Specialties, Kemper has returned all of them to Industrial Specialties, and because
none of the couplers or internal parts are identified or labeled, there is no direct way to trace a
specific coupler or components. Accordingly, under the totality of the facts of this case, the
Court finds that it is a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the evidence in this case
in fact establishes that Lorimer provided any of the products that caused plaintiff’s injuries.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment [docket no. 98] and Defendant Lorimer’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[docket no. 116].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of December, 2014.

7