Case Title: Farnham v. Bombardier, Inc.

Citation: 161 Vt. 619, 640 A.2d 47

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY_ORDER.93-037; 161 Vt. 619; 640 A.2d 47

[Filed 01-Feb-1994]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-037

                             JANUARY TERM, 1994


 Sheila Farnham, Guardian          }          APPEALED FROM:
 of Gerald Farnham                 }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Washington Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Bombardier, Inc.                  }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. S650-89WnC


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Plaintiff Sheila Farnham appeals from the grant of summary judgment in
 favor of defendant Bombardier, Inc., in her products liability action.  We
 affirm.

      Plaintiff is the guardian of Gerald Farnham, who was injured in an
 accident that occurred during a snowmobile race between five snowmobilers on
 a runway about thirty feet wide at a private airstrip in Washington, Vermont.
 Defendant is the manufacturer of a Ski-doo Formula MX snowmobile ridden by
 another racer, John Kinnarney.  The snowmobiles reached speeds in excess of 60
 m.p.h.  Plaintiff alleged that Kinnarney's snowmobile flipped over and struck
 Gerald Farnham when both racers' vehicles were caught in a whiteout and
 Kinnarney braked his snowmobile in an attempt to slow down.  There were no
 witnesses to the actual moment of injury, but Gerald Farnham was found
 unconscious beside the track with a small wound in the back of his head.  The
 helmet he had been wearing was on the ground some distance away.  He remains
 comatose.

      Plaintiff claimed strict liability, among other things, alleging that
 the snowmobile ridden by Kinnarney contained design defects that rendered it
 unstable when braking at high speeds within its designed speed range.  The
 court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment because of a lack of
 evidence of a design defect, without reaching Bombardier's defenses of
 assumption of the risk and superseding cause.

      Reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the
 trial court, namely, that the motion should be granted when, taking all
 allegations made by the nonmoving party as true, there are no genuine issues
 of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
 Garneau v. Curtis & Bedell, Inc., 158 Vt. 363, 366, 610 A.2d 132, 133 (1992).
 Summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate time for discovery, a
 plaintiff is unable to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of
 an element essential to her case, and on which she has the burden of proof at
 trial.  Poplaski v. Lamphere, 152 Vt. 251, 254-55, 565 A.2d 1326, 1329 (1989).


 

      To establish strict liability in a products liability action, a
 plaintiff must show that the defendant's product (1) is defective; (2) is
 unreasonably dangerous to the consumer in normal use; (3) reached the
 consumer without undergoing any substantial change in condition; and (4)
 caused injury to the consumer because of its defective design.  Restatement
 (Second) of Torts { 402A (1965); see Zaleskie v. Joyce, 133 Vt. 150, 154-55,