Products Liability Law Reporter

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a wheel manufacturer was not liable to a man who was injured when a wheel came off his ATV, throwing him off.

Anthony Markel was thrown from his ATV during a race after the vehicle’s right wheel came off. He sued the wheel’s manufacturer, alleging claims for products liability and failure to warn. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured after being thrown from his ATV and that the defendant’s wheels were not sufficient to withstand the rigors of ATV racing. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant failed to adequately warn that its wheels were not suitable for ATV racing conditions and that the wheels were defectively designed and labeled. The district court granted summary judgment for the defense.

Affirming, the Eighth Circuit found that to prove his products liability claims, the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant’s wheels were in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous for their intended use, the defect existed when the wheels left the defendant’s control, and the defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Citing case law, the court added that expert testimony is required where the product at issue and its inner workings are beyond a lay juror’s common knowledge. Applying these principles here, the court found that the plaintiff’s claim depends on an assessment of the appropriate strength and design of aluminum ATV racing wheels. This involves complex mathematical and engineering concepts, which a juror cannot be expected to comprehend without an expert’s assistance. The court found that the plaintiff’s report specifically disclaims an opinion as to whether the plaintiff’s ATV wheel had a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous. Thus, the court held that summary judgment was proper on the plaintiff’s products liability claims.

Regarding the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, the court noted that the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the defendant had a duty to warn, the defendant had breached this duty by providing an inadequate warning, and that this led to the plaintiff’s injuries. The record completely lacks evidence that an inadequate warning had led to the plaintiff’s injuries, the court noted. Plaintiff counsel’s reference to an alleged statement by the plaintiff that he would not have used the defendant’s wheels had he known they were unsuitable for racing constitutes hearsay, the court said, holding that absent admissible evidence supporting the causation element of the plaintiff’s failure to warn claim, summary judgment for the defendant had been proper.

Citation: Markel v. Douglas Technologies Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 4515385 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2020).