Products Liability Law Reporter
Recreational Products & Equipment
You must be a Products Liability Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of the Products Liability Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Products Liability SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Marina’s alleged failure to warn houseboat passenger was not proximate cause of her injuries
August/September 2020A federal district court granted summary judgment to a marina that rented a houseboat to a woman who was subsequently injured after jumping into the water while the houseboat’s engine was running.
Olga Cioban-Leontiy and a group of friends rented a houseboat from Silverthorn Resort Associates and took the boat onto Lake Shasta. After Cioban-Leontiy’s hat blew away, she jumped into the water to retrieve it. Her body came into contact with the houseboat’s propeller, and she sustained injuries to both of her legs. Cioban-Leontiy sued Silverthorn Resort Associates, alleging strict liability, products liability, and negligence. Suit claimed that the defendant had failed to provide adequate safety information to houseboat occupants before the group took the vessel out on the water. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had been well aware of the dangers involved with houseboating and jumping into the water while a boat’s motor was running, and that any failure to warn could not have been the cause of her injuries as a matter of law.
Granting the motion, the district court noted that the defendant is not liable under a failure to warn theory unless the alleged failure to warn was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury. Citing case law, the court added that an omission does not constitute a substantial factor where it is merely a theoretical cause of the plaintiff’s injury or loss.
Here, the court said, the plaintiff had prior boating experience and admitted that she had been aware of the danger posed by jumping from a boat while its engine was running. Thus, the court concluded that it is implausible for the plaintiff—who is arguably a sophisticated user—to assert that the defendant’s failure to warn of recognized dangers and not her own behavior was the cause of her injuries. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant’s alleged failure to warn was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries and, therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
Citation: Cioban-Leontiy v. Silverthorn Resort Assocs., LP, 2020 WL 2836493 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2020).