Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—E.D. Ky.: Plaintiffs fail to show specific defect that rendered defective the underride guard of a tractor-trailer involved in an accident, (Jan 14, 2014)

By John W. Scanlan, J.D.

Design defect claims against the lessor of the tractor-trailer involved in an accident failed as a matter of law because the plaintiffs failed to show the specific defect in the tractor-trailer’s underride guard, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled. Consequently, wrongful death claims against the leasing company and the company that operated the truck also failed (Richardson v. Rose Transport, Inc., January 13, 2013, Caldwell, K.).

Background. In September 2008, Leslie Richardson was involved in an accident with a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of Rose Transport, Inc. The tractor-trailer was manufactured by Wabash National Corporation, and owned by XTRA Lease, Inc., which leased it to Rose Transport. Richardson suffered a severe brain injury in the accident, and he ultimately died of the injury in October 2011. A month before he died, Richardson and his wife, Andrea Richardson, filed negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium claims against Rose Transport and XTRA Lease. Over a year later, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Wabash as a defendant, and added products liability claims against Wabash and XTRA Lease, but not Rose, and also added wrongful death claims against all defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged that the trailer was in a defective condition that rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and this defect was the proximate cause of the injuries and eventual death of Richardson. Specifically, they asserted that the trailer’s underride guard failed due to design defects and negligent maintenance. The claims against Wabash were dismissed due to the statute of limitations, but the plaintiffs continued to assert that XTRA Lease knew or should have known that the trailer was in a defective condition and/or unreasonably dangerous. After the close of discovery, Rose Transport and XTRA Lease moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the plaintiffs moved to file a second amended complaint adding an additional claim of negligence against both defendants and adding Rose Transport to the design defect claim.

Defective design. The plaintiffs could not prevail on a design defect claim against XTRA Lease, the court found. The plaintiffs’ expert witness’ opinion that the override guard was defectively designed was based only on the fact that it failed when it should not have failed, according to the expert. He argued that although the guard met federal safety standards, those standards were inadequate, based on scientific studies that provided alternative designs. However, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that a product is defective, and the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate what the defect in the guard was. The plaintiffs did not offer evidence related to the specific design in the trailer, which they were required to do; in fact, their expert did not examine its design specifications.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not show that XTRA Lease knew or should have known that the trailer was defectively designed. The trailer was manufactured by Wabash, and no evidence suggested that XTRA Lease altered the underride guard. Although the plaintiffs’ expert witness claimed that the guard was defective, he was unable to provide any information that XTRA Lease could have discovered without actually field testing the trailer, the court said. If this was sufficient evidence, the court reasoned, “trailer consumers would be required to crash-test their merchandise.”

The court declined to interpret Count V of the plaintiffs’ complaint as alleging a claim of defective design against Rose Transport, as well as XTRA Lease. The plaintiffs stated that both defendants had the same counsel and the plaintiffs’ expert witness testified that both companies should have exercised greater diligence in selecting a trailer. However, the expert was not deposed until over ten months after the amended complaint was filed. Even if the deposition put Rose Transport on notice of the possible claim against it, this implied notice would not be sufficient to add a defendant to Count V of the complaint.

The case number is 5:11-317-KKC.

Attorneys: Craig M. Schneider (Wolnitzek & Rowekamp, PSC) for Andrea Richardson. Daniel E. Murner (Landrum & Shouse LLP) for Rose Transport, Inc.

Companies: Rose Transport, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews EvidentiaryNews MotorEquipmentNews KentuckyNews