Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that the manufacturer of adaptive equipment for a handicapped-accessible van may be liable to a consumer for breach of warranty, negligence, and other claims.

Here, Gaynell Colburn, who has a disability and requires special equipment to access her motor vehicle, visited Mobility Works to shop for a handicapped-accessible vehicle. A Mobility Works representative told Colburn about a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Limited that was ordered by, but never delivered to, another customer. The van, which was parked outside the store, was fully outfitted with a BraunAbility Power Ramp and Hand Controls manufactured by the Braun Corp. Colburn purchased the vehicle, and the representative told her that it came with a three-year manufacturer’s warranty effective as of the date of the sale. BraunAbility sent Colburn a welcome letter approximately one month later.

The van began to malfunction shortly after the purchase. In one instance, while Colburn was exiting the van, the ramp retracted prematurely, and she was thrown out of her wheelchair onto the ground. She suffered a fractured thumb and wrist, an injured shoulder, a concussion, and a retinal detachment. The following month, Colburn was thrown off the ramp again, sustaining a traumatic brain injury.

Colburn brought a products liability action against Mobility Works and Braun, alleging consumer protection violations, various breach of warranty claims, negligence, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Braun filed a motion to dismiss.

Granting in part and denying in part, the court found that to succeed on a breach of express warranty claim, a plaintiff must prove that the seller created an express warranty, the product did not conform to the warranty, and the lack of conformity led to the alleged injury. Here, the court found, the plaintiff alleged that the sales proposal for the van included an adaptive equipment summary page, which explained the BraunAbility conversion package. The summary, together with the price of the Braun handicapped conversion, warranted that the vehicle was fully functioning as handicapped accessible. This, together with the two specific instances where the ramp malfunctioned and led to the plaintiff’s serious injury, warrants that discovery on the breach of express warranty claim go forward, the court concluded.

The court also found that the plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim could proceed. The court rejected the defense argument that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed due to her failure to allege that Braun had manufactured the parts of the vehicle that had malfunctioned. The plaintiff alleged that Braun was a manufacturer of wheelchair accessible vans and wheelchair lifts, the court said, adding that the plaintiff also repeatedly alleged that the company had designed, manufactured, and installed the wheelchair adaptive equipment at issue.

Turning to the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, the court noted that a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is implied in the sale of goods when the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know of any particular purpose for which the goods are required, and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment to select or furnish suitable goods. Here, the court found, the plaintiff failed to plead that she intended to use the handicapped-accessible vehicle for a particular purpose beyond what the vehicle was intended to serve. The plaintiff also purchased and used the vehicle for the exact purpose for which it was designed and sold, the court said, granting dismissal on this claim.

Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff had properly pleaded her negligence claim in that she had set forth facts indicating Braun’s duty, its equipment malfunction, and her alleged injuries. Her claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which supplements state law, also survived dismissal based on her express and implied warranty claims, the court said.

Citation: Colburn v. Braun Corp., 2023 WL 131040 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Kathleen Hyland, Baltimore; and AAJ member Jane Santoni, Towson, Md.