Moody v. Blanchard Place Apartments
2001 WL 748061, 793 So. 2d 281 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product liability claimant must prove a manufacturing defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's control, and extensive post-manufacture alterations, spoliation of evidence, and a lapse of time can negate such proof, supporting summary judgment for the manufacturer. Furthermore, under Louisiana's strict liability, an owner or custodian of a thing is liable for damages caused by its defect if they knew or should have known of the defect, could have prevented the harm, and failed to exercise reasonable care, especially when inadequate maintenance policies indicate constructive knowledge of dangerous conditions.
Facts:
- On May 30, 1996, Robert E. Moody, who lived with his two daughters in apartment number 56 of Blanchard Place Apartments, sustained injuries.
- Blanchard Place Apartments, managed by Calhoun Property Management, Inc., provided a ten-year-old electric stove, manufactured by Roper Corporation and sold by Sears, Roebuck & Co., for tenant use.
- While cooking on the back burner, Mr. Moody attempted to stir noodles with a metal spoon and received a strong electric shock that prevented him from immediately disengaging, causing him to stumble backward and hit his head, neck, and back on the kitchen wall, all witnessed by his daughters.
- The apartment's maintenance man, Kenny Wells, examined the stove the day after the incident and found a small hole burned in the frame where a wire had been pinched between the cooktop and the burner box bottom; he repaired it with a wire from another stove.
- The repaired stove was subsequently placed in another apartment, used without incident, and later mistakenly moved to a central warehouse where it was cannibalized for parts, then returned to storage with missing parts replaced.
- Defendants' expert, Alan Weckerling, inspected the stove in September 1997 and opined that a metal grounding strap was never attached, noting pristine screw holes; however, a subsequent joint inspection in April 1998 by Mr. Weckerling and the manufacturer's expert found the grounding strap attached and other changes to the stove.
- The circuit powering the stove in Mr. Moody's apartment was 50 amps, exceeding the 40 amps recommended in the stove's installation manual.
- Electrical tape was found on wires near the stove's thermostat, which an expert testified was defective maintenance due to high temperatures in that area that could melt the tape and cause a short.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert E. Moody, individually and as tutor for his minor daughters, Leah Nicole Moody and Lacey Brooke Moody (Plaintiffs), filed a personal injury suit against Blanchard Place Apartments, Calhoun Property Management, Inc., and their insurer Clarendon National Insurance Company (Defendants) in a trial court.
- Defendants filed a third-party demand against Sears, Roebuck & Co., General Electric Company, and Roper Corporation (Third-Party Defendants/Manufacturers) for indemnification.
- Third-Party Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Defendants could not carry their burden of proof, primarily due to spoliation of evidence.
- The trial court granted Third-Party Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing them from the case.
- Following the dismissal of Third-Party Defendants, the trial court disallowed the introduction of any evidence pertaining to the manufacture of the stove during the subsequent trial.
- The remaining claims proceeded to trial, where the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, awarding Mr. Moody $363,611 and $20,000 to each of his daughters.
- Defendants (Third-Party Plaintiffs) appealed both the summary judgment dismissal of the manufacturers and the judgment against them to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
- After the appeal was lodged, Appellants filed a supplemental appeal brief asserting a claim in redhibition against Third-Party Defendants/Appellees, who responded by filing peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and prescription.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment dismissing product manufacturers due to a lack of evidence of a manufacturing defect, and did the jury correctly find the apartment owner and manager liable under Louisiana's strict liability statute for a tenant's electric shock injury caused by a defective stove, given evidence of their actual or constructive knowledge of the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Peatross, J.
Yes, the trial court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the product manufacturers, and the jury correctly found the apartment owner and manager liable. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Blanchard Place Apartments and Calhoun Property Management, Inc.'s third-party demand because they failed to prove the stove was defective when it left the manufacturers' control. Citing La. R.S. 9:2800.54 and 9:2800.55, the court emphasized that a product defect must exist at the time it leaves the manufacturer. Given the stove's age, unknown alterations, cannibalization for parts, and inadequate maintenance records, the court concluded that these factors, per Norris v. Bell Helicopter Textron, negated any inference of a defect existing at the time of manufacture. The burden then shifted to the apartment owners to produce factual support, which they failed to do, thus warranting summary judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 966 and 967. Regarding the apartment owners' and managers' liability, the court affirmed the jury's finding that the stove presented an "unreasonable risk of harm." This was supported by evidence of a pinched wire causing an electrical short, an oversized 50-amp circuit, and the use of electrical tape near the thermostat. Applying the risk-utility balancing test from Celestine v. Union Oil Co. of California and Boyle v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University, the court deferred to the jury's factual determination. Crucially, under La. C.C. art. 2317.1, the apartment owners were found liable because they knew or should have known of the dangerous condition. Testimony from the apartment manager revealed a "discount maintenance policy" employing unqualified individuals (like her 17-year-old son or tenants) and a frequent practice of using electrical tape instead of proper soldering for repairs. This demonstrated Calhoun's constructive knowledge that dangerous conditions could arise from their negligent maintenance practices. The jury's awards for general and special damages were also affirmed as not manifestly erroneous, given the medical and economic testimony presented.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary burden placed on claimants to prove a manufacturing defect, especially when evidence has been altered or spoliated. It underscores that extensive post-manufacture modifications, coupled with inadequate record-keeping and a lapse of time, can be fatal to product liability claims against manufacturers. Simultaneously, the decision serves as a critical reminder to property owners and managers that under Louisiana's strict liability, they can be held responsible for tenant injuries caused by defective appliances if their maintenance policies, or lack thereof, establish actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous conditions. The ruling highlights that prioritizing cost-cutting over qualified maintenance can directly lead to liability.
