Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that summary judgment for the defense was warranted in a products liability suit against the makers of a washing machine and its door lock.

Alex Lazar opened the door lock on his front-loading Kenmore washing machine. He reached into the machine while its drum continued to spin, and his arm became entangled with the clothes inside the washer. As a result, he suffered arm injuries that necessitated surgeries and resulted in permanent injury.

He sued Electrolux Home Products, Inc., which manufactured the washing machine, and Illinois Tool Works, Inc., which manufactured the washer’s door lock. The plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed in Texas state court, alleged products liability claims based on a product defect in the washer’s locking mechanism. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and then moved for summary judgment.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that both strict liability and negligence theories of products liability require proof of a defect. Holdings from the Texas Supreme Court, the court added, require a plaintiff to offer expert testimony and objective proof that would support a jury’s finding that a product defect led to the plaintiff’s condition.

Here, the plaintiff’s expert, Adam Aleksander, had not identified a specific defect, although he used the term “defect” in his report to refer to a problem with the lock on the plaintiff’s washer. Moreover, the court found that Aleksander had no opinion regarding whether the alleged defect existed in the lock sold by Illinois Tool or in the way the lock interacted with the washer’s control system. Aleksander confirmed that he did not know why or how the locked failed, the court added, concluding that, therefore, the expert’s report failed to identify a design or manufacturing defect leading to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Finding that an average person would require expert testimony to understand the mechanism by which a washing machine lock was defective, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to offer competent evidence sufficient to withstand the defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Citation: Lazar v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 2022 WL 1594428 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2022).