Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12972/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12972-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heidi Leoncio
Appellant
Rene Leoncio
Appellant
Louisville Ladder, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12972

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-21837-CMA

RENE LEONCIO,

HEIDI LEONCIO,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC.,

f.k.a. Davidson Ladder Company, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 6, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Plaintiffs Rene and Heidi Leoncio appeal the district court’s entry of 

summary judgment in favor of Louisville Ladder, Inc. Mr. Leoncio was injured 

when a ladder designed and manufactured by Louisville Ladder gave way beneath

him while he was removing Christmas lights from his home. He filed this lawsuit

in state court, bringing claims for strict liability, negligence, and loss of 

consortium. Louisville Ladder removed the case to federal court.

The district court granted partial summary judgment to Louisville Ladder for

the claims based on a failure-to-warn theory of liability. The court found that Mr. 

Leoncio’s deposition testimony clearly established his failure to read the warning 

labels on the ladder. Although Mr. Leoncio filed an affidavit stating that he had 

read the labels, the district disregarded it as a sham affidavit because it was “in 

direct contradiction with his earlier deposition testimony” and was not filed until 

after the defendant moved for summary judgment. Partial Summary Judgment 

Order, ECF No. 91 at 8. The affidavit was filed four months after Mr. Leoncio’s 

deposition and three days before the plaintiffs’ response to the defendant’s 

summary judgment motion was due. Mr. Leoncio never attempted to correct his 

deposition through errata sheets or otherwise.

The district court further rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that, even 

assuming Mr. Leoncio failed to read the warnings, Louisville Ladder could be 

USCA11 Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

liable for his injuries nonetheless. Under Florida law,

1 however, “‘[w]here the 

person to whom the manufacturer owed a duty to warn . . . has not read the label, 

an inadequate warning cannot be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.’” 

Id. at 10 (quoting Lopez v. So. Coatings, Inc., 580 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1991). The district court therefore granted summary judgment on the claims 

“predicated on Defendant’s failure to provide an adequate warning,” but allowed 

the design defect, manufacturing defect, and loss of consortium claims to proceed. 

Id. at 10. The plaintiffs later decided not to pursue these remaining claims, and the 

district court entered final judgment in favor of Louisville Ladder.

The plaintiffs repeat the same arguments on appeal.2

 We agree with the 

district court’s reasoning in its partial summary judgment order. Mr. Leoncio’s 

deposition testimony unambiguously established that he had never read the 

warning labels on the ladder. His self-serving, contradictory affidavit filed after 

Louisville Ladder moved for summary judgment was insufficient to create an issue 

of material fact. Florida law is clear that Mr. Leoncio’s failure to read the warning 

 1 The district court implicitly found that Florida law applies, and the parties did not 

challenge that determination below or on appeal. Accordingly, we will apply Florida law. Cavic 

v. Grand Bahama Dev. Co., Ltd., 701 F.2d 879, 882 (11th Cir. 1983). 2 The plaintiffs also argue on appeal that there were genuine issues of material fact 

regarding whether the warning label was adequate because it (1) was inconspicuous and (2) did 

not address the danger of inverted positioning of the ladder. These arguments are arguably 

waived. See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 103 at 3. Even if not waived 

and not foreclosed by Florida law on proximate cause, these arguments fail because Mr. Leoncio 

admitted that he had seen the warning label, and the warning label clearly shows the correct 

positioning of the ladder with the foot grips on the ground and the fly above the base, with 

arrows pointing to the locks where the fly overlaps the base.

USCA11 Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

cuts off Louisville Ladder’s liability based on the alleged inadequacy of the 

warning. Id. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 4 of 4