Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2565, SECTION "R" (5).
June 24, 2003.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of defendant, Home Depot, Inc., ("Home Depot") for summary judgment on plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion.
I. Background
John Scordill is a welder. He purchased two stepladders at a Home Depot in 1997 or 1998. Both ladders were Davidson Model 592-61 stepladders, ladders that stand six feet tall and that are made of fiberglass rails and aluminum steps. The ladders were manufactured in 1996 by Louisville Ladder in 1996 at a manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico. While working on a job in Orleans Parish on February 16, 2002, Scordill placed a stepladder — the incident ladder — alongside a wall. He climbed up to the second rung of the ladder and turned around so that his back was to the ladder. He then reached up with his right hand to weld an I-beam to metal plates that had been installed the day before. He leaned his left elbow against the wall to steady himself, his left hand grabbing his right wrist to support the welding gun in his right hand. The ladder then buckled beneath him. Scordill fell on the ladder and sustained numerous injuries.
Plaintiffs, John and Cynthia Scordill, brought suit in state court raising claims of unreasonably dangerous manufacturing, unreasonably dangerous design, and failure to adequately warn. They assert that the ladder failed along its left front rail, just below the first rung of the ladder. Defendants Louisville Ladder, Inc., and Home Depot removed the case to this Court. Defendant Home Depot moves the Court for summary judgment on each of plaintiffs' claims.
II. Motion For Summary Judgment
A. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-3, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2551 (1986). The court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party or, in other words, "that the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to return a verdict in her favor." Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1445 (5th Cir. 1993).
If the dispositive issue is one for which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2552; Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 178. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.
B. The Louisiana Products Liability Act
Home Depot moves for summary judgment on each of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiff claims that the ladder was unreasonably dangerous due to (1) an inadequate warning, (2) a defective design and (3) a manufacturing defect. Each of plaintiffs' claims arises under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"). LA. REV. STAT. §§ 9:2800.51-.59 (2003).
The LPLA provides "the exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damage caused by their products." LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.52. A product manufacturer is liable to a claimant "for damage proximately caused by a characteristic of the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product. . . ." LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.54.
Defendant Home Depot asserts (1) that it is not a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the LPLA, and (2) that plaintiffs have made no showing that Home Depot, a non-manufacturer seller, knew or should have known of the alleged manufacturing defects in the ladder at the time of sale. It is undisputed that Home Depot is not a manufacturer within the meaning of the LPLA. LA. REV. STAT. § 9:2800.53(1). It is also undisputed that under Louisiana law, a non-manufacturing seller of a defective product is not responsible for damages in tort absent a showing that he knew or should have known the product was defective and failed to declare it. See Jackson v. Sears Authorized Retail Dealer Store, 821 So.2d 590, 593 (La.Ct.App. 2002). Plaintiffs have made no showing whatsoever that Home Depot knew or should have known of the alleged manufacturing defects. Accordingly, the Court grants Home Depot's motion for summary judgment.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendant Home Depot's motion for summary judgment.