NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a1117n.06 Case No. 11- 4149 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA K . THOMPSON; M ARLIN THOMPSON, P laintif fs-App ellants,

v. SUNBEAM P RODUCTS, INC.; SIMATELE X MAN UF ACTURING CO.; WAL-MAR T ST ORES, INC.; JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIO NS; JOHN DOE CORP ORATION 1-3; JOHN DOE 1-3, Defendan ts-Appellees.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFO RE : BATCHEL DER, Chief Circuit Judge; COLE, Circuit Judge; ROSEN, Chief District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Judge. Ba rbar a Thompson injured her left-ha nd ring fing er when she attempted to push in a moving beate r on a hand mix er. She believes that inadequa te

war nings cause d her injury , so she sued the mix er’ s manufa cture r, Sunbeam Products, I nc. (“Sunbea m”), alleg ing sever al Ohio product liability claims, includ in g a n in a dequate war

ning claim. After Sunbeam removed the case t o fede ral dist rict court, the court g rante d summary judgment in favor of Sunbeam on a ll Thompson’s claims. W e af firm.

T h e H o n o r a b l e G e r a l d E

. R o s e n , C h i e f U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t J u d g e f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i c h i g a n , *
s i t t i n g b y d e s i g n a t i o n .N o . 1 1

- 4 1 4 9 , T h o m p s o n v
. S u n b e a m Thompson purcha sed the Sunbeam hand mix er from her local Wal-Mart on Oct o b er 10, 2007. Eag er to test her ne w purchase, Thompson opened the packa g e, “skimm ed” the instruction booklet which included the safe ty war nings, ins er t ed the beate rs, and plugg ed in the mix er. The beate rs immediately beg an to rotate, and Thompson noticed that one of the beate rs beg an to fall out. She “re flexively ” rea ched her hand towar d the beate rs and attempted to push the beate r back into place with the palm of her hand. Her fing er beca me caug ht betwee n the mov i n g b eaters and was

near ly sever ed. Eve ntually , Thompson’s fing er r equire d amputation. Thompson believes that when she attempted to push the beate r back into the mix er with her hand, the beate r caug ht the ring she was wea ring o n her ring fing er and pulled the fing er into the pinch point of the beate rs. She claims that the mix er was defe ctive beca use the instruction manual did not have a war

ning specific ally articula

ting the dang ers of operati n g t h e m ix er while wea ring jewelr y , which would have preve nted her injury

. T he instruction booklet did, howeve r, instruct users to unplug the mix er befor e inserting any attachme nts a nd to ke ep “hands, hair, clothing, as well as spatulas an d o t h er u tensils awa y from beate rs during operation to reduc e the risk of injury .” M o r e o ver, a capital- letter war ning on the mix er rea d, “Caution: Unplug befor e inserting or rem o v in g parts.” The district court g rante d summary judgme nt to Sunbeam beca use there was no evidenc e that Thompson’s ring contributed to or exacer bated her injury , but that even if it had, the war ning to keep hands awa

y from the beate rs while the mix er was operating was adequate, and no other wa rn i n g would have pr evente d Thompson’s ref lexi ve re action of pushing in the beate r. Afte r ca re ful ly revie wing the rec ord, the settled law, the parties’ briefs, and the oral
arg uments on appea l, we conclude that the district court’s or der a nd opinion corr ectly sets out the
2N o . 1 1

- 4 1 4 9 , T h o m p s o n v
. S u n b e a m applicab l e law and corr ectly applies t hat l aw to the facts in the record. Be cause we see no rea son
to either ad d t o or elabor ate on the district court’s opinion, the issuance of a full written opinion would serve no useful purpo s e. Ac cordingly , for the rea sons stated in the district court’s wellrea soned opinion, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.

3