Products Liability Law Reporter

A Louisiana appellate court held that a distributor of a rolling walker was not liable to a consumer who fell while trying to sit down on the walker.

Brenda Baham underwent lumbar fusion surgery and was prescribed a rolling walker to assist her in ambulating safely. She purchased a rollator manufactured by Compass Health Brand Corp. from Midsouth Medical, Inc. A Midsouth employee, Damon Tyler, instructed Baham on how to use the device, including how to walk, sit, and use the rollator’s hand brakes. Tyler told Baham that the walker could get away from her if she moved it too quickly but that under those circumstances, she could use the hand brakes to slow the walker down. Baham also was provided the product manual, which included similar instructions and warned that the hand brakes should not be used as a primary stopping tool.

More than four months after she began using the rollator, Baham locked the device’s brakes and attempted to sit down. It rolled out from under her, causing her to fall and aggravate a preexisting lumbar spine injury.

Baham and her husband sued Compass Health and Midsouth Medical, alleging negligence and violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA). Midsouth moved for summary judgment on the basis that as a seller, it was not liable under the LPLA. The defendant also argued there was no evidence it had been negligent. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against Midsouth with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment regarding their negligence claims.

Affirming, the appellate court found that to determine liability in a negligence suit, courts must apply a duty-risk analysis, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, this duty was breached, and the risk of harm was within the scope of protection the duty afforded. Citing case law, the court added that it must be established that a causal relationship exists between a plaintiff’s harm and the alleged negligent conduct.

The court found that despite the plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary, Tyler’s instructions for using the rollator did not contravene the instructions in the product’s user manual. The occasional use of the hand brakes to slow speed or stop is contemplated by the manual, the court found. Additionally, the court noted an absence of factual support for the causation element of the plaintiffs’ negligence claim. The plaintiffs have not provided any evidence supporting their theory that Baham’s overuse of the brakes led them to fail on the day of the incident, the court said, adding that there also is no evidence of any brake failure.

Consequently, the court found that summary judgment was proper.

Citation: Baham v. Compass Health Brand Corp., 2022 WL 3221366 (La. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2022).