Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—TOOLS AND HARDWARE—M.D. Fla.: Man injured by exploding leaf blower can pursue design defect claim based on expert testimony, (Mar 20, 2019)

By Harold S. Berman, J.D.

The injury victim could submit expert testimony on the blower’s allegedly defective design, even though the expert did not test the blower. There was no plausible evidence of a manufacturing defect, however.

An individual who sustained a serious eye injury after a leaf blower exploded while he was using it could proceed with his design defect claim against Lowe’s Home Centers and the product’s manufacturers, but not with his manufacturing defect claim, a federal district court in Florida ruled. The court concluded that the opinion of the injured man’s expert was admissible concerning the design defect claim, as the expert used recognized methods to analyze the blower’s design, and so he did not need to actually test the blower or alternative designs. The court dismissed the manufacturing defect claim, however, finding little evidence from which a defect could be inferred (Jones v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, March 19, 2019, Dalton, R.).

In October 2016, a church sexton was using an electric leaf blower to clear away leaves before Sunday services began. While using the leaf blower, it exploded, seriously injuring him. He was rushed to the hospital, where he underwent emergency eye surgery. Despite the surgery and two additional surgeries, his vision was not restored. His now blurry vision limits his driving as well as his outdoor and physical activities. He also had work restrictions.

The sexton sued Lowe’s Home Centers and the leaf blower manufacturers for negligence and strict liability based on manufacturing and design defects. To support his design defect claim, the sexton produced an engineering expert who submitted a report offering his opinion that the inclusion of a plastic/polymer impeller in the blower was a design defect because of its propensity to fracture, and that the blower instead either should have had a metal impeller or should have encased the plastic one with a metal lining to guard against possible fracture.

Lowe’s and the manufacturers filed a motion to exclude the expert’s testimony as unreliable, also moving for summary judgment.

Design defect claims. The court rejected the manufacturers’ challenge of the expert’s opinion as unreliable for not testing the blower or any proposed alternative design. Rather, the expert’s testimony met the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and, as such, was admissible. The expert reached his opinion concerning the design defect and proposed alternative use of a metal impeller or metal lining by using a standard safety analysis known as the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. The expert followed his analysis with a recognized safety hierarchy used when designing machinery to eliminate or mitigate safety hazards.

Manufacturing defect claims. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the sexton’s manufacturing defect claims, however. The sexton’s expert examined the leaf blower, but offered no opinion concerning possible manufacturing defects. Additionally, little was known about the blower’s history such that a manufacturing defect could be inferred. There was no evidence concerning the date of purchase, whether it was used only by church employees, and whether it was ever dropped or damaged.

The blower’s warranty had expired a year before the injury, and its user manual stated that it was suitable for household use only. The court also noted that the blower’s primary purpose was to hurl debris at high rates of speed. How it was operated, what type of debris was removed, and outside conditions all depended on the operator of the blower rather than the blower itself. Consequently, the malfunction of the blower alone did not create an inference of a manufacturing defect, the court determined.

The case is No. 6:17-cv-2018-Orl-37TBS.

Attorneys: Andrew Parker Felix (Morgan & Morgan, PA) for Robert Jones. Frederick Jay Fein (Clyde & Co. [US] LLP) for Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, MTD Southwest Inc. and Troy-Bilt LLC.

Companies: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC; MTD Southwest Inc.; Troy-Bilt LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DesignManufacturingNews ExpertEvidenceNews ToolsHardwareNews FloridaNews