Summary
following Hammond and granting summary judgment when plaintiffs offered no expert testimony on alleged design, manufacturing, warning or instruction defects
Summary of this case from Davis v. Ford Motor Co.Opinion
CIVIL NO. 1:99CV302-JAD.
April 26, 2001.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Davidson Ladder Company, has moved for summary judgment against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion. After reviewing the evidence submitted in support of the motion and the court file, the court finds that the motion is well taken and should be granted.
On September 9, 1996, William Henson was injured when the ladder manufactured by movant fell as he stood on the third rung. He was transported to the hospital emergency room in Southaven, Mississippi. His arm was placed in a cast, his ribs were x-rayed and he was given pain medication. September 7, 1999, Henson filed suit against Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., where the ladder was purportedly purchased, and the manufacturer. Henson claims in his complaint that Davidson Ladder Company manufactured "a defective and unreasonably dangerous product."
Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was earlier dismissed on the ground that it did not sell the subject ladder.
Davidson has presented to this court the report of its expert, Keith Vidal, P. E., President of Vidal Engineering, Inc., of St. Louis, MO. The report, based on both an inspection of the site and of the ladder involved, concludes:
All of the damage observed on this ladder, with the exception of the missing right rear foot, was consistent with Mr. Henson losing his balance, causing the ladder to topple to the left, and then falling on top of the ladder. There was no evidence of any defective materials, design or manufacture of the ladder that could have caused the ladder to fail as Mr. Henson suggests it did. Based upon my investigation into this matter, it is my professional opinion to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that Mr. Henson caused the ladder on which he was working to fall, due to poor work habits, improper ladder setup, and a poorly maintained ladder. Mr. Henson violated the selection, care and use instructions printed on the label found on the left front rail of the ladder. In my opinion this accident was the result of Mr. Henson's negligence and lack of proper selection, use and care of the ladder.
Plaintiffs have offered no expert testimony relating to manufacturing defects, design defects, or warning or instruction defects. Based on Hammond v. Coleman Co., Inc. 61 F. Supp.2d 533, 541 (S.D.Miss. 1999),affirmed 209 F.2d 718, defendant argues that failure to offer admissible expert testimony relating to manufacturing defect, design defect or warning or instruction defect of the ladder precludes recovery. The court agrees.
Having no evidence of any nature from plaintiffs to rebut the conclusion of Mr. Vidal, the court can only conclude that they can offer none. For this reason, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.
A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be issued separately.