Krummel v. Bombardier Corp.
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 5107, 206 F.3d 548, 2000 A.M.C. 1452 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a manufacturer's liability for failure to warn under the Louisiana Products Liability Act or the Restatement (Third) of Torts, a plaintiff must present evidence of the frequency and severity of the risk through a risk-utility analysis; proof of a single injury alone is insufficient to demonstrate that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care.
Facts:
- In 1994, Robert Krummel and his wife, Patricia Krummel, purchased two Bombardier Sea-Doo GTX personal watercraft.
- The watercraft was designed with footwells approximately five and one-half inches wide and 11 inches high in the operator's area.
- Prior to the accident, Robert Krummel reviewed all of Bombardier's instructional materials, none of which warned of the potential for a user's leg to become trapped in the footwell if the vehicle tipped over.
- Bombardier's promotional materials described falling overboard as 'an expected part of the fun.'
- On August 27, 1994, Robert Krummel was operating the watercraft on a navigable river with his wife and daughter as passengers.
- While idling, the watercraft was struck by a wake, causing it to tip to the left (port) side.
- As he began to fall, Robert Krummel intentionally wedged his left foot into the footwell in an attempt to brace himself.
- While his foot remained fixed in the footwell, his body's momentum to the left caused his tibia and fibula to snap.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Patricia Krummel filed an admiralty and maritime claim against Bombardier Corp. and Bombardier, Inc. in the U.S. District Court.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial (trial by judge, no jury).
- The district court found that the watercraft was not defectively designed but held Bombardier liable for failure to provide adequate warnings regarding foot entrapment.
- The district court awarded damages to the Krummels.
- Bombardier, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Krummels were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer have a duty to warn of a product's potential danger under the Louisiana Products Liability Act and the Restatement (Third) of Torts when the plaintiff provides evidence that an injury occurred but fails to present evidence of the frequency of such accidents or the severity of the risk posed by the product's design?
Opinions:
Majority - Duhé, Circuit Judge
No, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn under these circumstances. To establish liability for failure to warn under either the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) or the Restatement (Third) of Torts, a plaintiff must prove through a risk-utility analysis that the manufacturer failed to use reasonable care. This requires presenting evidence regarding the frequency of similar accidents and the severity of the risk posed by the product. In this case, Krummel failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond his own injury and the testimony of one other person who had two similar accidents. Without evidence showing the probability and severity of the risk of foot entrapment, a court cannot conclude that Bombardier should have foreseen the danger and thus failed to exercise reasonable care by not providing a warning. The district court erred by finding liability based solely on the fact that an injury occurred, without properly applying the risk-utility balancing test.
Dissenting - Dennis, Circuit Judge
Yes, the manufacturer did have a duty to warn. The majority incorrectly applies the complex risk-utility test required for 'design defect' claims to the much simpler 'failure to warn' claim, which only requires a showing that the manufacturer 'failed to use reasonable care.' The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) does not require a plaintiff to present statistical evidence on accident frequency to prove a failure to warn claim. The trial court correctly found that Bombardier knew of the foreseeable risk of foot entrapment, the potential harm was severe, and a simple warning would have allowed Krummel to avoid the injury. By imposing a heightened evidentiary standard, the majority is effectively rewriting Louisiana law and making it prohibitively difficult for ordinary plaintiffs to hold manufacturers accountable for failing to warn of known dangers.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in failure-to-warn products liability cases within the Fifth Circuit. By requiring a risk-utility analysis that includes evidence of accident frequency and risk severity, the court effectively merges the standards for failure-to-warn and design defect claims. This precedent makes it more difficult and costly for plaintiffs to succeed, as they must now gather statistical or expert evidence to quantify a product's risk rather than relying on the foreseeability of their specific injury. Consequently, the ruling offers greater protection to manufacturers, shielding them from liability unless a clear and documented pattern of similar injuries can be established.
