Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00611-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOHN JORDAN, an individual,

NO. CIV. S-05-0611 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DEERE & COMPANY; THE SCOTTS

COMPANY; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.;

and DOES 1 to 11;

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff John Jordan filed this products liability 

suit after allegedly sustaining injury from the operation of a

Scotts brand lawnmower manufactured by defendant Deere & Company

and purchased from defendant Home Depot, Inc. Defendants now

move for summary judgment. For the reasons given below, the

court denies defendants’ motion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 2001, plaintiff purchased a Scotts brand Walk-Behind

Rotary Lawnmower that was manufactured by defendant Deere &

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court notes that defendants filed objections to 1

plaintiff’s evidence with their reply. Some of the objections

are directed to plaintiff’s characterizations of the shape of the

lawnmower handle. The court has not relied on these

characterizations in its analysis, and therefore need not address

these objections. Moreover, defendants primarily target

plaintiff’s response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts

and not the underlying affidavits on which these statements are

based. A plaintiff’s statement of disputed facts is not

evidence, the admissibility of which can be challenged under the

Federal Rules of Evidence. See Perma Research & Dev. Co. v.

Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 579 (2d Cir. 1969) (holding that

objections to an affidavit submitted on a motion for summary

judgment “must be precise” and “specify which parts of the . . .

affidavit should be stricken and why” (emphasis added)); 10B

Charles Alan Wright et al., 10B Federal Practice and Procedure §

2738 (3d ed. 1998 & Supp. 2005) (“[A] motion to strike should

specify the objectionable portions of the affidavit and the

grounds for each objection.”). 

2

Company. (Martorano Decl. Ex. D (Jordan Dep. 10:18).)1

Plaintiff knew at the time of purchase that the lawnmower had a

folding handle. (Id. at 13:15-17.) Additionally, the bars that

comprise the lawnmower handle intersect and create a joint, the

edge of which is not round. (Jordan Decl. ¶ 3; see also

Martorano Decl. Ex. A (Photograph 5).) Steel control cables

covered in plastic run from the upper handle down to the area of

the engine. (Id. ¶ 5.) They also run near the previouslydescribed joint on the outside of the handle. (Id. ¶¶ 5-8.) 

The lawnmower came with a manual that plaintiff read in

its entirety before operating the machine. (Id. at 15:2-10.) 

The text of the manual directs the operator to ensure the cables

are inside of the handle while folding or unfolding the handle. 

(Martorano Decl. Ex. D (Jordan Dep. 15:2-10).) The manual

contains subsections entitled “Fold Handles” and “Unfold

Handles.” (Jordan Decl. Ex. 1 (Operator’s Manual at 27, 29).) 

Below each subsection is a bolded warning labeled “IMPORTANT”.

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(Id. at 27-28.) The warning in the “Fold” subsection reads: 

“Avoid Damage! DO NOT CRIMP CABLES when folding handle bars.” 

(Id. at 27.) The warning in the “Unfold” subsection reads:

“Avoid Damage! Prevent Damage to mower control cables when

installing handle assembly. DO NOT pinch or crimp the control

cables. Control cables must be inside of handle and unrestricted

before tightening hardware.” (Id. at 29.) The instructions

later elaborate: “CAREFULLY fold lower handle forward. Guide

cables inside lower handle. DO NOT CRIMP CABLES”. (Id. at 28

(emphasis added).) 

Plaintiff used his lawnmower once each week from

approximately March through October during the years of 2001 and

2002. (Martorano Decl. Ex. D (Jordan Dep. 15:11-19, 18:9-18).) 

Between each use he folded down the handles and stored the

machine in his shed. (Id. at 17:2-18.) He followed the same

procedure when storing the lawnmower for the winter. (Id. at

15:21-15.) Prior to the incident that led to this litigation,

plaintiff had never hurt himself in any way folding or unfolding

the lawnmower handle. (Id. at 18:21-24.) According to an

employee of defendant Deere & Company, no other injury has been

reported to Deere involving the folding or unfolding of the

handle of a lawnmower of the same design as the handle at issue

in this case. (Hopkins Decl. ¶ 9.)

In February of 2003, Plaintiff decided to mow his lawn. 

(Id. at 20:4-18.) As instructed, he guided the control cable out

of the way by holding it down with his right hand. (Id. at

21:16-21.) He used his left hand to pull up the handle. (Id. at

21:16-21.) The tip of his index finger on the hand he was using

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants object to the description of plaintiff’s 2

injury as an amputation or severance, because the medical report

refers to a “crush amputation”. The court’s reaction to this

objection is to wonder what difference it makes and why defense

counsel would waste their clients’ money by making such a

meaningless objection. The medical report refers to plaintiff’s

injury as “transverse amputation through the distal phalanx at

the mid portion of the nail plate” (Supp. Martorano Decl. Ex. F),

indicating that a portion of plaintiff’s finger was amputated

through crushing by the operation of the handle of the lawnmower. 

The court, over defendants’ objection but based on the plain

language of the medical report submitted by defendants, will

therefore refer to plaintiff’s injury as an amputation or an

amputation effected through crushing.

Plaintiff appears to attempt to make a cross motion for 3

summary judgment in his opposition to defendants’ motion. (Opp’n

to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 20 (“Plaintiff joins Defendants’

request and asks the court to summarily adjudicate factual issues

. . . .”).) This language is not sufficient for plaintiff to

have properly noticed a motion for summary judgment. See E.D.

Local Rule 78-230 (“Except as otherwise provided in

these Rules or as ordered or allowed by the Court, all motions

shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or

Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file with the Clerk a

notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if

appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence . . . .”). 

Moreover, the court’s conclusion that there are disputed issues

of material fact that preclude summary judgment would apply

equally to this motion and to a cross-motion for summary judgment

properly filed by plaintiff. 

4

to guide the cable became caught in the joint between the upper

and lower portions of the lawnmower handle. (Id. at 21:22-24,

66:11-13.) Plaintiff had inadvertently extended his finger into

the zone of the handle with an edge, and he sustained a crush

amputation of a fingertip on his right hand when he unfolded the 2

handle. (Jordan Decl. ¶ 15.) 

Plaintiff filed this action for products liability on

January 28, 2005 (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges

a single cause of action for products liability, and includes

allegations that the product was defective and adequate warnings

were not provided. Defendants now move for summary judgment.3

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

II. Discussion

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). A material fact is one that could affect the outcome of

the suit, and a genuine issue is one that could permit a

reasonable jury to enter a verdict in the non-moving party’s

favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986). 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial

burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact and can satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that

negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s case. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Alternatively, the movant can demonstrate that the non-moving

party cannot provide evidence to support an essential element

upon which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id.

Any inferences drawn from the underlying facts must, however, be

viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the

motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

The substantive law governing a case determines the

materiality of a fact. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. P. Elec.

Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). In a

products liability action, there are three categories of defects

that may result in strict liability: (1) manufacturing defects,

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

(2) design defects, and (3) inadequate warnings or instructions. 

Brown v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057 (1988). 

Plaintiff’s claims are based on two of these three categories of

defects: design defects and inadequate warnings. (See Pl.’s

Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. 2, 21.)

“[A] product is defective in design either (1) if the

product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer

would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable

manner, or (2) if . . . the benefits of the challenged design

outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” Barker v.

Lull Eng’g Co., Inc., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 432 (1978). “The two tests

provide alternative means for a plaintiff to prove design defect

. . . .” McCabe v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal. App. 4th 1111,

1121 (2002). 

These tests “are not mutually exclusive, and a

plaintiff may proceed under either or both.” Id. at 1126. Here,

plaintiff argues in the alternative that both tests apply. 

Accordingly, summary judgment must be denied if there is a

disputed issue of material fact on either plaintiff’s consumer

expectation theory or his risk/benefits theory of defective

design or his inadequate warning theory of liability.

“[T]he consumer expectation test is reserved for cases

in which the everyday experience of the product’s users permits a

conclusion that the product’s design violated minimum safety

assumptions and is thus defective regardless of expert opinion

about the merits of the design.” Id. (citing Soule v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548, 562, 567 (1994)) (emphasis

omitted); see also Stephen v. Ford Motor Co., 134 Cal. App. 4th

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Folding apparatuses are present on a variety of items 4

besides lawnmowers; to name just a few examples, consumers

operate such handles on objects as diverse as ladders, luggage,

futons, and ironing boards. 

7

1363, 1371 (2005) (“The consumer expectation test applies only

when the defect can be determined by common knowledge regarding

minimum safety expectations . . . .”). Based on the reasoning

that these products are within the ordinary experience of

consumers, the consumer expectations test has been applied to

torts involving products such as home pesticides, public

transportation, and asbestos insulation. McCabe, 100 Cal. App.

4th at 1121-22 (citing Campbell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 32 Cal. 3d

112, 126 (1982); Sparks v. Owens-Ill., Inc., 32 Cal. App. 4th

461, 474-475 (1995); Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 91 Cal. App. 4th

698, 726 (2001)). Likewise, lawnmowers and folding handles are 4

familiar to consumers such that consumers would form expectations

about the minimum safety requirements. 

Under the consumer expectations test, “[t]he critical

question is whether the ‘circumstances of the product’s failure

permit an inference that the product’s design performed below the

legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety assumptions of its

ordinary consumers.’” McCabe, 100 Cal. App. 4th at 1122-23

(citing Soule, 8 Cal. 4th at 568-69). As made clear by the

parties’ arguments, this question is a fact-intensive inquiry,

and the facts that are material here are disputed.

Defendants contend that an ordinary consumer would have

expected that a finger might be caught, pinched, and even

amputated through the crushing operation of a folding handle. 

Plaintiff contends to the contrary that no ordinary consumer

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants argue that because defendant The Scotts 5

Company simply was the brand of the lawnmower, but not the

manufacturer, it would not be strictly liable here. However, any

defendant involved in the chain of production may be held

strictly liable for a defective product. Bay Summit Cmty. Ass’n

v. Shell Oil Co., 51 Cal. App. 4th 762, 773 (1996) (“California

courts have further recognized the doctrine extends to

nonmanufacturing parties outside the vertical chain of

distribution of a product, which play an integral role in the

‘producing and marketing enterprise’ of a defective product and

who profit from placing the product into the stream of

commerce.”).

As plaintiff noted in oral argument, the operator’s

manual mentions The Scotts Company several times, including a

prominent position for the company name on the title page of the

manual and an introductory statement reading “Thank You for

Purchasing a Scotts Product”. (See Martorano Decl. Ex. C at 1,

2.) Additionally, defendant The Scotts Company provided the

brand name for the lawnmower. (See Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 2.) 

This evidence raises at least a genuine issue of material fact

regarding whether this defendant was involved in the chain of

production. Furthermore, defendants have presented no evidence

to the contrary. Therefore, dismissal of this defendant is

unwarranted at this stage. 

8

would expect that the minimum safety standard would include the

possibility that his finger might become amputated in the process

of folding or unfolding the lawnmower handle. As this

disagreement suggests, whether the design met the ordinary

consumer’s expectations of basic safety is typically a question

for the jury to resolve. Campbell, 32 Cal. 3d at 120 (“Unless

very unusual circumstances exist, [a design defect products

liability] claim presents a factual issue which can only be

resolved by the trier of fact.”). Therefore, whether plaintiff’s

injury was within ordinary consumer expectations is a disputed

issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment on the

existence of a design defect. The court therefore need not deal

with the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand summary

judgment on plaintiff’s alternative theories of liability.5

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: July 5, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00611-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 07/06/06 Page 9 of 9