Koken v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc.
426 F.3d 39 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a products liability action for failure to warn, a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence to prove that the absence of an adequate warning was the proximate cause of the injury. For a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, a plaintiff must provide objective evidence that the product was not fit for its ordinary purpose by failing to meet the reasonable expectations of an ordinary user.
Facts:
- Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. (B & V) was the general contractor for a construction project involving a generator, with subcontractors Redco, Inc. and O’Connor Constructors, Inc.
- On May 17, 1999, Perry Austin, a welder for Redco, performed a torch-cutting operation on a platform above the generator.
- A fire blanket, allegedly manufactured by Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. and distributed by Inpro, Inc., was placed on the platform to catch molten slag.
- During the cutting, molten slag fell onto the blanket, burned through it, and ignited a fire on the underlying plywood platform.
- Austin used a chemical fire extinguisher to put out the fire.
- While the fire caused no damage, the corrosive chemicals discharged from the extinguisher caused approximately $9 million in damage to the generator below.
- Austin, a welder with 26 years of experience, testified he was unaware that fire blankets had different temperature ratings and did not expect the blanket to melt.
Procedural Posture:
- Reliance Insurance Company and Black & Yeatch Construction, Inc. (B & V) brought product liability and breach of warranty claims against Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. and Inpro, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
- Auburn and Inpro moved for summary judgment on the product liability claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Auburn and Inpro, concluding there was no duty to warn, no breach of duty, and no proof of causation.
- Reliance and B & V, as appellants, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a products liability action based on a failure to warn theory, is summary judgment for the defendant appropriate when the plaintiff fails to produce evidence demonstrating that an adequate warning would have been heeded and would have prevented the plaintiff's injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Dyk, Circuit Judge
Yes, summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate. A plaintiff in a failure-to-warn case cannot survive summary judgment without producing sufficient evidence of proximate causation. The court analyzed four potential warnings suggested by the appellants. For each, the appellants failed to show that the presence of the warning would have altered the user's actions to prevent the damage. For instance, with a '1000 degrees rated' warning, there was no evidence as to what a foreman would have done with that information; it was pure speculation. Similarly, while there is a legal presumption that a warning will be heeded, it does not apply where the plaintiff fails to establish the factual predicate for the warning. Appellants provided no evidence that the use constituted 'horizontal capture of concentrated spatter or red-hot cut pieces,' so the presumption that a warning against such use would be heeded is irrelevant. On the breach of warranty claim, the standard is the objective expectation of a reasonable ordinary user, not the subjective expectation of the plaintiff. Appellants failed to offer evidence of ordinary user expectations, such as expert testimony or industry standards, thereby failing to meet their evidentiary burden.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the critical role of proximate causation in failure-to-warn litigation, making it clear that a plaintiff cannot rely on speculation to survive summary judgment. It demonstrates that establishing a duty to warn and a breach is insufficient; a concrete evidentiary link must be drawn between the lack of a specific warning and the resulting injury. The court also limits the utility of the 'heeding presumption,' holding it is inapplicable unless the plaintiff first proves the factual conditions the warning would have addressed. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to prove not just what a warning should have said, but that it would have directly prevented the harm that occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Koken v. Black & Veatch Construction, Inc.