Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that summary judgment for a defendant saw manufacturer was proper where a products liability plaintiff failed to identify the person from whom he bought the saw and failed to provide evidence that the product was unused or unmodified when he bought it.

William Holley purchased a Ryobi TSS100L sliding compound miter saw from an individual seller outside of a grocery store. While he was operating the saw, the blade guard came loose and separated. Holley’s middle three fingers were severed on the exposed blade. He and his wife sued Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., which designs, manufactures, and assembles miter saws under the Ryobi brand name, alleging manufacturing defect. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to create a material issue of fact showing the existence of a defect when the saw left the factory.

Granting the motion, the district court found that to establish a claim for manufacturing defect under a strict liability theory, a plaintiff must show he or she has been injured by the product, the injury resulted from a product defect, and the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s possession. Here, the court said, Holley has provided no admissible proof, except for his own observations, that the saw was new and untampered with when he bought it. Holley did not retain the saw’s packaging, the court added, nor did he keep any receipts for the saw. Thus, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the saw was in the same condition when purchased as when it left the factory. Citing case law, the court noted that it was the plaintiffs’ burden to prove the alleged defect existed at the time of manufacture. Concluding that they had not carried this burden, the court held that summary judgment was proper.

Citation: Holley v. Techtronic Indus. N. Am., Inc., 2018 WL 6460276 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018), appeal dismissed, 2019 WL 1559885 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2019).