UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JANE QURA, as mother and next

friend of Michael G. Qura, a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

D R MCCLAIN & SON,

Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff- No. 95-1744

Appellee,

v.

SBAM, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Verona

Deli; JANE QURA,

Third Party Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-94-1380-A)

Argued: May 9, 1996

Decided: September 30, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert Benbow Adams, ASHCRAFT & GEREL, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. William Edgar Spivey, KAUFMAN
& CANOLES, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:

Jonathan L. Thornton, KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

At four years old, Michael Qura severely injured his hand in a

pizza dough roller in the kitchen of a deli and pizza parlor owned and

run by a corporation, SBAM, which his parents owned. His mother,

Jane Qura, filed a lawsuit as next friend of her son against the manufacturer of the dough machine D.R. McClain & Son ("the company")

seeking damages based on a theory that the injuries were caused by

the negligent design of the machine, by the company's failure to provide adequate warnings of potential dangers, and by the company's

breach of its implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for

a particular purpose. The district court granted summary judgment in

favor of the company. For the following reasons, we reverse and

remand.

I

On the day of the injury, Jane Qura had her son Michael at work

with her. Michael had been given a roll of pizza dough to play with.

Michael then had dragged a chair into the kitchen from the restaurant

area. He placed the chair near the dough roller contrary to his mother's order. Jane Qura proceeded to remove Michael from the chair.

She was, however, distracted, thus permitting Michael to climb back

up in the chair. Michael proceeded to turn on the dough machine. He

had seen his parents operate the machine before and had done so himself under his father's supervision on previous occasions. While

Michael was playing with the dough roller, his left hand missed the

safety bar and was caught in the rollers resulting in severe injuries.

 2
Jane Qura, as her son's mother and next friend, filed a lawsuit in

Virginia state court alleging that Michael's injuries were caused by

the company that manufactured the machine.1 The company removed

the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The company

also filed a third-party action against Jane Qura and SBAM seeking

indemnification from Jane Qura and SBAM if Michael recovered any

damages based on Jane Qura's alleged negligence in supervising her

son.2 Subsequently, the company moved for summary judgment alleging that Jane Qura's negligence was the proximate cause of Michael's

injury because her negligence had intervened and superseded any

alleged negligent design, inadequacy of warning, or breach of warranty by the company.

The district court granted the company's motion, holding that Jane

Qura's negligence was an intervening cause which superseded any

alleged negligence, failure to warn adequately, or breach of warranties by the company. Furthermore, the district court noted that

Michael's use of the dough roller was an unforeseeable use for which

the company could not be held responsible. Jane Qura, as mother and

next friend of her son, has appealed.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Jane Qura also could have sued for medical expenses. When a child

is injured, two causes of action accrue under Virginia law. One accrues

on behalf of the child for injuries themselves and the other on behalf of

the parent for expenses incurred. Hutto v. BIC Corp., 800 F. Supp. 1367,

1372 (E.D. Va. 1992).

2 Jane Qura's counsel wrote the insurance company for the pizza parlor

requesting coverage after the accident based on the clear negligence of

the business' employees--one of whom was Jane Qura--in permitting

Michael to play with a machine, which counsel contended was "clearly

at least potentially dangerous."

Upon the consent of the company "without prejudice to the claims

asserted against SBAM, Inc. and Jane Qura, should this case be

remanded," we granted SBAM and Jane Qura's motion to dismiss themselves as third-party defendants.

 3
II

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's summary judgment ruling under a de

novo standard of review. Henson v. Liggett Group, Inc., 61 F.3d 270,

274 (4th Cir. 1995); Jackson v. Kimel, 992 F.2d 1318, 1322 (4th Cir.

1993). Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

summary judgment is only appropriate where there are no genuine

issues of material fact. In conducting our analysis, we review the

record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

B. Causation

Jane Qura, as her son's mother and next friend, must demonstrate

that the company's negligence and breach of warranty were the proximate cause of Michael's injuries in order to hold the company liable.

Virginia defines proximate cause as "that act or omission which

immediately causes or fails to prevent the injury; an act or omission

occurring or concurring with another, where, had it not happened, the

injury would not have been inflicted." Von Roy v. Whitescarver, 89

S.E.2d 346, 352 (Va. 1955) (quoting Schools v. Walker, 47 S.E.2d

418, 423 (Va. 1948)). An entirely independent, intervening wrongful

act may supersede by breaking the chain of causation, and becoming

the sole proximate cause. Cooper v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 628 F. Supp.

1488, 1493 (W.D. Va. 1986); Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp., 267

S.E.2d 143, 147 (Va. 1980); Maroulis v. Elliott , 151 S.E.2d 339, 345

(Va. 1966).

Michael was not tall enough even to reach the machine, nor was

he old enough to read the warnings and directions on the machine. In

order to reach the machine, Michael had to drag a chair over to it.

Jane Qura allowed Michael to pull a chair over to the dough roller.

Jane Qura removed him from the chair once, but then gave up and

allowed Michael to play with the machine. She continued what she

was doing with her back to Michael. Thus, Jane Qura failed to supervise properly her son in a potentially very dangerous situation--a

commercial kitchen with commercial bakery equipment.

 4
Virginia law, however, precludes Jane Qura's failure to supervise

properly her son from acting as an intervening proximate cause in a

lawsuit by the son against the manufacturer of the machine. Under

Virginia law, a child under the age of seven cannot be contributorily

negligent. Grant v. Mays, 129 S.E.2d 10, 12 (Va. 1963). Virginia has

a long-standing principle that the negligence of a parent cannot be

imputed to the child in order to defeat the child's claim for damages

against a negligent defendant. Shelton v. Mullins, 147 S.E.2d 754,

756-57 (Va. 1966); American Tobacco Co. v. Harrison, 27 S.E.2d

181, 185 (Va. 1943). The Virginia courts have interpreted the principle of disallowing imputation of the parents' negligence to the child

as disallowing the parents' negligence from acting as a proximate

cause of the accident. For example, in Shelton , a car struck and

injured a three-year-old child while he attempted to cross the street.

The mother of the child had directed her son to cross the street to

return a toy to another child. The mother had seen the car coming and,

therefore, had waved to her son, crying out "Bobby, go back!"

Despite the warning, the child started across the street and was hit.

The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the defendant

driver and remanded for a new trial based, in part, on erroneous jury

instructions that had been

designed to permit the jury to exonerate the driver of the car

from liability if they believed from the evidence that the

mother of the child was guilty of negligence in permitting

him to cross the street unattended, or in hollering and waving so as to distract the attention of the driver from her view

of the street ahead, and that the mother's negligence was a

proximate cause of the accident.

147 S.E.2d at 756.

In another case, American Tobacco, a truck hit and injured a nineyear-old girl as she ran into the street. In appealing a jury verdict in

favor of the girl, the defendant argued that the negligence of the girl's

mother in allowing the child to cross the street between intersections

should be imputed to the girl. The court reiterated the principle that

the negligence of a parent may not be imputed to the child. In doing

so, the court relied on the principle set forth in Norfolk & W.R. Co.

v. Groseclose's Adm'r, 13 S.E. 454, 455 (Va. 1891), that "the parents'

 5
negligence is no defense, because it is regarded, not as a proximate,

but as a remote cause of the injury." 27 S.E.2d at 185. According to

the Norfolk & W.R. court, the parents' negligence is a remote rather

than proximate cause because

the child, who, itself being incapable of negligence, cannot

authorize it in another. It is not correct to say that the parent

is the agent of the child, for the latter cannot appoint an

agent. The law confides the care and custody of a child non

sui juris to the parents, but, if this duty be not performed,

the fault is the parents', not the child's.

13 S.E. at 435.3 But see Kelley v. Rival Mfg., 704 F. Supp. 1039,

1044-45 (W.D. Okla. 1989) (awarding summary judgment to defendant manufacturer of product where negligence of parents was cause

of accident in Oklahoma, which also has a rule that very young children cannot be negligent).

The company argues that it cannot be held liable for negligent

design, failure to warn, or breach of warranty even if the mother's

negligence cannot intervene as a proximate cause because Michael

Qura's use of the machine was an unforeseeable misuse. Under Virginia law, misuse of a product bars claims of negligence and breach

of warranty. Besser Co. v. Hansen, 415 S.E.2d 138, 144 (Va. 1992);

_________________________________________________________________

3 In Norfolk & W.R., the parents brought the action as the administrators of their deceased child's estate. They, as his heirs, would benefit

from any recovery. In an opinion following Norfolk & W.R., the Virginia

Supreme Court clarified that "there can be no recovery where the action

is brought in the name and for the benefit of one whose negligence has

contributed to the accident." Richmond F. & P.R. Co. v. Martin's Adm'r,

45 S.E. 894, 894 (Va. 1903). Thus, it held that a father, who was guilty

of negligence contributing to the cause of his son's death, could not

recover for the death in an action benefiting the father. Id. at 894-96. The

negligence of the father would interpose no defense only in an action by

the child for the child's benefit. Id.; see also Davis v. Seaboard Air Line

Ry., 48 S.E. 591, 592 (N.C. 1904). Here, the lawsuit is brought by the

mother as next friend of her child. The child in such an action is the real

party plaintiff rather than the next friend. 42 AmJur 2d Infants §§ 151,

161 (1969). Thus, here, the parents' negligence cannot operate as a

defense.

 6
Turner v. Manning, Maxwell & Moor, Inc., 217 S.E.2d 863, 869 (Va.

1975); Baecher v. McFarland, 31 S.E.2d 279, 281 (Va. 1944).4 Virginia law does not require that a manufacturer of a product make it

accident-proof. Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 252

S.E.2d 358, 367 (Va. 1979). "Virtually any product is capable of producing injury when put to certain uses or misuses." Todd v. Societe

BIC, S.A., 21 F.3d 1402, 1407 (7th Cir.) (quoting Hunt v. Blasius, 384

N.E.2d 368, 372 (Ill. 1978)), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 359 (1994). A

manufacturer is, therefore, not always held liable in instances of misuse. A plaintiff must, therefore, demonstrate liability with a defect

rendering the product unsafe and unreasonably dangerous for its ordinary and foreseeable uses. Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co., 993 F.2d

417, 420 (4th Cir. 1993).

The district court stated in denying relief that"the misuse" of the

machine was so "grossly negligent and unforeseeable [in] nature" that

it went "beyond any possible defect in the design." The district court

found that Jane Qura's expert had conceded as well that the machine

was not intended for use by four-year-olds. While we agree that the

expert stated that a four-year-old child making pizza dough is unusual

and not intended by the company, the expert stated that: "It's certainly

not being misused in making the dough." Thus, in one sense the

machine was being used for the purpose for which it was intended--

to make pizza dough. If a hand on any individual could just as easily

have slipped through the safety device, then the machine's use was

not necessarily a misuse. On the other hand, if only a four-year-old's

hand due to size, lack of coordination, or some similar four-year-old

characteristic could slip through, then the machine could be seen as

being misused. If misused, then the company's negligence was not a

proximate cause. If used in the manner intended, then the company's

_________________________________________________________________

4 In Baecher, a five-year-old child was injured when climbing a barbedwire fence. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed a verdict for the child

reasoning that: "The use of barbed wire as a material in the construction

of fences is so common and universal that we cannot classify it as a dangerous instrumentality." The court further stated, however, that "[i]f by

any stretch of the imagination it could be so considered, then, its connection with the accident, as a cause, is so broken and remote, and so

entirely superseded by the independent act of the child as to make impossible foreseeable sequence." 31 S.E. 2d at 281.

 7
negligent design, failure to warn, and breach of warranty could be the

proximate cause. Thus, there is a dispute of material fact rendering

summary judgment inappropriate.

Generally, proximate cause is a question for the jury. Only where

persons of reasonable minds may not fairly differ on the proper inferences to be drawn from the facts, does the issue of proximate cause

become a question of law for the court. Hubbard v. Murray, 3 S.E.2d

397, 402 (Va. 1939). Here, we find that reasonable minds could differ. Thus, we remand for a jury trial as to whether the company can

be held liable for Michael Qura's injuries.5

Accordingly, the district court's order is

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

_________________________________________________________________

5 On remand, Jane Qura, in her individual capacity, and SBAM are

reinstated as third-party defendants, their dismissal being contingent

upon the district court's opinion being affirmed. In the event of an award

to Michael Qura, the district court should consider whether the company

can seek contribution from Jane Qura, in her individual capacity, and

SBAM.

 8