FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 21, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
M I CH AEL A . HEN RI E, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. NOR T HR OP GR UM M AN C O R PO R A T I O N , form er l yknow n as No r t h r o p Co rp o r a t i o n ; NOR T HR OP GR UM M AN S YS T E M S ; NOR T HR OP GR UM M AN I NF OR M AT I ON T E C H N O L O G Y , IN C ., D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4102

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

U t ah ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CV- 2 9 6 - P GC) D ougl as B . C annon of Fabi an & C l endeni n, Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ff - A p p e llan t. R y an M . H arr i s ( J . A ngus E dw ar ds w i th hi m on the br i efs ) of J ones , W al do, H olbr oo k & M cD on ou gh S al tL ake C i ty , U t ah, for D efen dan t s - A pp el l ants . B efor e O’ B RI E N, B AL DO CK and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

M i chae l H enr i e s ever el yi nj ur ed hi s arm w hi l e w or ki ng atH i l l A i rFor ce Ba s e ( Hi l l F i e l d ) u s i n g a n a p p a r a tu s t o h o l d l a r g e , h e a v yp a r t s fo rp a i n t i n g . He fil ed a p rod u cts l iabili tyclaim ag ains t N o rth rop G rum m an C o rpo rati o n (N G C ), t he manufactur erof the appa r atus . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent i n fa v o ro f

NGC. He n r i e a p p e a l e d . W e a ffi r m. I . Backg r ound H enr i e i s an expe r i ence d pr ofes s i onal ci vi l i an pai nt erw ho had w or ked for t he mi l i t aryatH i l l Fi el d fort w enty - thr ee y ear s . O n J ul y19, 2001, w hi l e pai nt i ng B 2 St eal t h B om berpart s , H enr i e i nj ur ed hi s arm and s houl derus i ng a devi ce know n as a “gl as s fi xtur e. ” ( R . V ol . I 318, 344- 348) . T he gl as s fi xtur e i s t he l ar ges tof el even di ffe r entfi xtur es , eac h des i gned t o hol d a di ffe r entpartof the a i r c r a f td u r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p a i n to ra n o th e rc o a t i n g . I ti s c o mp r i s e d o f t wo s q u a re f ra m e s , o n e w h ic h ro ta te s w ith in th e o th e r, s o m e w h a t lik e a g yro s c o p e . T he fr ames a r e att ache d t o a w heel ed bas e. T he fi xtur e i s us ed as fol l ow s : T he wo r k e r s p l a c e t h e i n n e rf r a me o f t h e fi x tu r e i n a h o r i z o n t a l p o s i t i o n . Th e f r a me pos i t i on i s s ecur ed w i t h t w o pi ns , one l ocat ed on ea ch s i de of the fr ame. O nce t he ai r cr aftparti s l oaded on the fr ame and cl amped, t w o per s ons s t andi ng on t he w h e e l b a se to e a c h sid e o f th e fix tu re re m o v e th e p in s w h ile s e v e ra l o th e rs h o ld t he fr ame and t hen move i tt o a vert i cal pos i t i on. T he pi ns ar e r ei ns er t ed w hen t he fr ame ( and the ai r cr aftpart ) r eac h the vert i cal pos i t i on. A ft ercompl et i ng w or k on t he part , t he pr oces s i s r ever s ed. T w o m en pul l t he pi ns w hi l e s ever alT he p art s m ayw ei gh m anyhu nd reds of po un ds. 1 -3- ot her s hol d t he fr ame t o pr eventuncontr ol l ed r ot at i on of the hea vi l yw ei ght ed end of t he par t . T he ai r cr aftparti s then pac kaged fors hi ppi ng.

1 Pr i ort o t he ac ci dent , H enr i e had be en w or ki ng i n the B 2 pr ogr am for appr oxi m at el ya y earand a ha l f. T he pai nt i ng depart m entempl oy ed s even or e ig h t em p lo y e e s. H e n rie ’s first c o n tac t w ith th e fix tu re s w a s a t N G C ’s C a lifo rn ia B 2 m a n u fa c tu rin g p lan t lo c a ted o n th e P ico R iv e ra A ir F o rc e B a se (P ico ). H e n rie an d an o ther p ainter w ere sen t fo r th irtyd ay s o f o b serv ati o n tr ainin g in F eb rua ry 1999. I n A pr i l orM ay1999, he and tw o otherempl oy ees w er e aga i n s entt o Pi co fo r six w e e k s o f

tra in in g . F in a lly , in la te 1 9 9 9 , h e re tu rn e d to P ico fo r a m o n th to do pr oduct i on w or k. A tPi co, t he fr ame devi ces r an on monora i l s . T he A i rFor ce r eques t ed N or t hr op G rum m an t o m odi fyt he fr ames t o fi ton a w heel ed bas e for us e atH i l l Fi el d aft erPi co cl os ed i n ear l y2000. T he devi ces w er e des i gned s ol el yforus e byt he pai nt er s atH i l l Fi el d. H en ri e testi fied h e a n d a fell o w w o rke r estab li sh ed the f ram e p roc ed u re a f te r t h e fix tu re s a rr iv e d a t H ill F ie ld w ith o u t in s tru c tio n s . See pp. 1- 2 supra (use of fi xtur e) . H enr i e and the otherpai nt er s us ed the var i ous fi xtur es everydayaft er t he equi pm entarr i ved atH i l l Fi el d up t o the dayof the ac ci dent . Fourorfi ve m ont hs befor e the ac ci dent , t he A i rFor ce modi fi ed the gl as s fi xtur e. H enr i e and h is c o -w o rk e rs r e p o rte d a sw iv e l w h ich a llo w e d th e a irc ra f t p a rt to ro tate w ith in i nnerfr ame w hi ch ca us ed them safe tyconce rns . A tt hei rr eques t , t he s w i vel w as-4-

w el ded s ol i d. O n J ul y19, 2001, H enr i e’ s s upervi s oras s i gned hi m and fe l l ow empl oy ee, I s aac D onohue, t o unl oad the gl as s fr om the fi xtur e and pa ckage i tfors hi ppi ng. T he tw o m en w entt o eac h s i de of the fi xtur e and s t ood on the bas e t o r el eas e the pi ns . H enr i e then ca l l ed outt o other s i n the ar ea foras s i s t ance i n l ow er i ng the p a rt a n d f

ra m e to th e h o riz o n tal p o sitio n . A s h e lo o k e d o v e r h is s h o u ld e r, H e n rie sa w “ a b u n c h o f

p e o p le” sta n d in g b e h in d h im . (R . V o l. 1 a t 3 2 8 .) H e m ista k e n ly a ss u m e d th e yw e re th e re to a ss ist w ith th e f ra m e a n d y e lled to D o n o h u e to p u ll th e p in . B o th m e n re lea se d th e p in s s im u ltan e o u sly . W h e n H e n rie tu rn e d to h e lp w ith th e f

ra m e , th e w e ig h te d s id e o f th e f ra m e s p u n d o w n a n d c a u g h t h is a rm . D onohue w as knocked off the fi xtur e bas e. H enr i e fr actur ed hi s el bow and dis l ocated his shou l der, even tuall yrequi ri ng several surger i es. O n J une 13, 2003, H enr i e fi l ed hi s cl ai m agai ns tN G C al l egi ng ( 1) s tr i ct pr oductl i abi l i t yfort he des i gn and manufactur e of a n unr eas onabl ydanger ous pr oduct , ( 2) negl i gentdes i gn, t es t i ng, m anufa ctur e and di s tr i but i on, and ( 3) br eac h of an i m pl i ed w arr antyof m er chant abi l i tyand fi tnes s . O n J anuary14, 2005, N G C fi l ed a M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm enton al l cl ai m s , cont endi ng the devi ce w or ked exa ct l yas des i gned and w as notunr eas onabl ydanger ous . T he di s t r i ctcourtdefe r r ed cons i der at i on of the mot i on unt i l t he compl et i on of d i s c o v e r y. A fter d isco v ery , N G C ren ew ed it s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. InD r . B r amber g pr opos ed both the r el ocat i on of the r ot at i on poi nt s t o the 2 a irp lan e p a rt’s c e n ter o f g ra v itya n d in sta lli n g a w o rm g e a r b o x w ith a c ra n k to t he s i de of the devi ce. W i t h t hes e fe atur es , t he w or kerm us tturn the cr ank appr oxi m at el yt w enty - fi ve t i m es t o m ove the pi ece fr om t he hor i zont al t o a v e rt ic a l p o s itio n . (R . V o l. I I a t 4 6 8 .) -5- r es pons e, H enr i e offer ed a r eportfr om hi s expert , D r . E berhar d B r amber g, opi ni ng t he pai nt i ng devi ce w as defe ct i ve bec aus e i tunnece s s ar i l ypl ace d the w o rk e rs in th e ro tatio n a l p a th o f th e d e v ice a n d th e h a z a rd c o u ld h a v e b e e n e a sily el i m i nat ed bypl aci ng t he r ot at i on poi nt s ar ound the part ’ s cent erof gr avi tyand/ or b y in sta lli n g a w o rm g e a r d riv e . In B ra m b e rg ’s o p in io n N G C a lso fa iled to 2 fo llo w b a sic h a z a rd a n a ly sis in th e d e sig n a n d m a n u fa c tu re o f th e p ro d u c t. O n A pr i l 24, 2006, t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof N G C . I tdet erm i ned, underU t ah l aw , a pl ai nt i ff mustm eetboth an obj ect i ve and subject i ve tes tt o d em on strat e t he p roduct w as unreasonab l ydan gerous, t he fir st el ementof a s t r i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i tycl ai m . R el y i ng on B r ow n v. Sears , R oebuck & Co. , t he courtdet erm i ned the fi xtur e w as unr eas onabl ydanger ous underan o bjecti v e test. 3 2 8 F . 3 d 1 2 7 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H o w ev er, be ca u se H en ri e’s e x p e rie n c e a n d tra in in g g a v e h im k n o w led g e o f th e p re c ise d a n g e r th a t ca u se d h is inju ry , the c o u rt c o n c lu d e d h e c o u ld n o t sh o w th e p ro d u c t w a s u n re a so n a b ly dan gerous to h im . T he di s t r i ctcourtt hen det erm i ned H enr i e’ s negl i gence and im p li ed w arran tyclaim s m u st fail fo r th e sa m e re aso n . Itg ran ted s u m m ary j ud gm ent i n fav or of N G C on al l cl ai m s. O n appea l , H enr i e ar gues t he di s tr i ctcourti ncorr ect l yappl i ed U t ah l aw-6-

beca us e ther e w as an ec onom i cal l yr eas onabl e al t ernat i ve t o pr eventthe des i gn d e fe c t , a n d t h e r e fo r e , h i s k n o wl e d g e o f th e d e fe c td o e s n o td e fe a th i s c l a i m. As hi s s econd i s s ue, H enr i e cl ai m s t o have pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o cr eat e a m a ter ial iss u e o f

fa c t as to w h e th e r N G C n e g lig e n tlyfa iled to e n g a g e in a b a sic hazard an al y si s. I I . D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ' s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, c o n stru in g a ll fa c ts a n d re a so n a b le in fe re n c e s in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to H e n ri e . See Al l en v. Mi nns tar, Inc , 8 F. 3d 1470, 1476 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operonl yi f the r ecor d s how s “that th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). “I n d iv e rsity cas es ourr ol e i s t o as cert ai n and appl ythe pr opers t at e l aw , her e thatof U t ah, w i t h t he goal of i ns ur i ng t hatt he r es ul tobt ai ned i s t he one thatw oul d have be en r e a c h e d i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s . We r e v i e w de novo th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g s w ith r es pectt o s t at e l aw . ” A l l en , 8 F . 3 d at 14 7 6 (cit ati o n s o m itted). A ti s s ue her e i s t he i nt erpr et at i on of U t ah C ode A nn. § 78- 15- 6, a partof t he U t ah Pr oduct s L i abi l i t yA ct . N or m al l y , “the fe der al courtm us tdefe rt o the m os tr ece ntdeci s i ons of the s t at e’ s hi ghes tcourt . ” Wanki erv. C r ow n E qui p. C or p. , 3 5 3 F .3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). H o w e v e r, “w h e re n o c o n tro lli n g sta te decis i on exis t s, t he fe deral cou rtm ustat t em pt t o p redi ctw hat the st at e’s highest-7-

cour tw oul d do . . . . bound byor di narypr i nci pl es of stare dec isis. ” Id . “T hu s, w hen a pa nel of thi s C our thas r ender ed a de ci s i on i nt erpr et i ng s t at e l aw , that in terp re tatio n is b in d in g o n d istric t co u rts in th is c irc u it, a n d o n su b se q u e n t p a n e ls of thi s C our t , unl es s an i nt erveni ng deci s i on of the s t at e’ s hi ghes tcour thas r es ol ved the i s s ue. ” Id . A . S trict P ro d u c ts L iab ili ty H enr i e cont ends t he di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l yappl i ed U t ah C ode A nn. § 7 8 -1 5 -6 , a p a rt o f

th e U tah P ro d u c ts L iab ili tyA c t. T h is p ro v isio n sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 78- 15- 6. D efect or defect i ve condi t i on m aki ng produ ct unreas onabl y dangerous- - R ebut t abl e pres um pt i on In a n ya c tio n fo r d a m a g e s fo r p e rso n a l inju ry , d e a th , o r p ro p e rty d a m a g e a lleg e d lyc a u se d b ya d e fe c t in a p ro d u c t: ( 1) N o pr oducts hal l be cons i der ed t o have a defe ctort o be i n a defe ct i ve condi t i on, unl es s att he t i m e the pr oductw as s ol d byt he m anufa ctur erorot heri ni t i al s el l er , t her e w as a defectordefe ct i ve c o n d iti o n in th e p ro d u c t w h ich m a d e th e p ro d u c t u n re a so n a b ly d an g ero u s to the u ser o r co n su m er. ( 2) A s us ed i n t hi s act , “unr eas onabl ydanger ous ” means t hatt he pr oductw as danger ous t o an ext entbey ond w hi ch w oul d be cont empl at ed byt he or di naryand prudentbuy er , cons um erorus erof that p rod u ct i n that co m m u n ityco n side ri n g the p rod u ct’s c h a ra c ter istics , p ro p e n sities , risk s, d a n g e rs a n d u se s to g e th e r w ith anyactual know l edge, t r ai ni ng, orexper i ence pos s es s ed byt hat p arti cu lar bu y er, use r or c o n su m er. D e sp ite th e lan g u a g e in su b se c tio n (2 ) o f th e sta tu te, H e n rie a rg u e d h is know l edge of

t he defectdoes notbarhi s cl ai m i f he c an s how t he defectcoul d be-8-

economi cal l yand pr act i cal l yel i m i nat ed. R el y i ng on B row n v. Sea rs , the di s tr i ct c o u rt d is a g re e d . I n Br o wn , the p lain tiff a lleg e d a rid in g law n m o w e r w a s u n re a so n a b ly danger ous i n t he abs ence of an a ut om at i c bl ade s hut - dow n w hen the mow erw as o p e ra te d in re v e rs e . Br o wn , 3 2 8 F . 3 d at 12 7 7 . T h e p lai n ti ff so u g h t r ec o v ery u n d e rt h e o r i e s o f

s t r i c tl i a b i l i t ya n d n e g l i g e n c e . Ad d r e s s i n g s tr i c tl i a b i l i ty , we not ed, “[t ] he l aw governi ng s t r i ctpr oduct s l i abi l i tyi n U t ah has tw o s our ces : the comm on l aw and a s t atut e, U t ah C ode A nn. § 78- 15- 6. A l though s om e r eport ed opi ni ons r efe rt o bot h s our ces , t he U t ah court s have de vot ed vi r tual l yno att ent i on t o exami ni ng t he i nt err el at i ons hi p betw een the s t atut e and the comm on l aw . ” Id . at1278. I n ourr evi ew of the s t atut e w e s t at ed: Sect i on 78- 15- 6( 2) s t at es thatt o be “unr eas onabl ydanger ous , ” a p rod u ct m u st be m o re d an g ero u s tha n “c o n tem p lat ed b ythe o rdin ary and pruden t ” person, “con si deri ng the p roduct’ s charact eri st i cs, propen si t i es, ri sk, dan gers and u ses to g e th e r w ith anyactual know l edge, t r ai ni ng, orexper i ence pos s es s ed bythatpart i cul ar buy er , us erorcons um er . ” . . . T he w or ds “t ogetherw i th” do not sign al th at th e it em s co n side red tog ethe r are a lt ern ati v es. . . . [W ]e m us tr ead “ t ogetherw i t h” as convey i ng cumul at i on. U nder s ubs ect i on ( 2) a pr oducti s “unr eas onabl ydanger ous ” i f i t s actual danger s exce ed i t s per cei ved dange r s . T he w or ds “t ogetherw i th” i ndi cat e thatt her e ar e tw o component s t o the pr oduct ’ s per cei ved d a n g e rs: (1 ) a n o rd in a ryp e rso n ' s u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e p ro d u c t, “ to g e th e r w ith ” ( 2) t he under s t andi ng pos s es s ed bythe part i cul ar per s on. Id . at1282. W e conc l uded § 78- 15- 6( 2) i m pos es “an obj ect i ve cons um er expec t at i ons t es t ” s uppl ement ed by“a s ubj ect i ve t es tbas ed on the i ndi vi dual k n o w ledg e, training , an d ex p erien ce o f th e p arti cu lar bu y er, use r, co n su m er, or,-9-

pos s i bl y , vi ct i m . ” Id . B eca us e “i ndi vi dual i nform at i on r egar di ng the pr oduct w o u ld o rdin aril yincre ase the p arti cu lar pe rson ’s ap p rec iat ion o f th e p rod u ct’s danger , ” the s ubj ect i ve t es t“i ncr eas es the ext entof the per cei ved dange rbey ond t hatcont empl at ed byt he or di naryand prudentper s on. ” Id . A p p ly ing thes e p ri n ciples to H en ri e’s stri ct l iabili tyclaim , the d istri ct co u rt d e ter m in e d th e p a in tin g d e v ice fa iled th e o bjec tiv e tes t (it w a s u n re a so n a b ly danger ous t o t he or di naryus er ) . H ow ever , gi ven H enr i e’ s ext ens i ve tr ai ni ng on and know l edge of

t he fi xtur es , t he gl as s fi xtur e w as notunr eas onabl ydanger ous un der the subj ect i ve tes t . H enri e no w argues Br o wn d o e s n o t ap p ly , an d if it d o e s , it s h o u ld b e o v e rru le d . T o demonstr at e Br o wn is in c o n flict w ith U tah law , H e n rie re lies p rim a rily on Hous e v. A r m ourof A m er i ca, Inc. , 886 P. 2d 542, 548 ( U t ah C t . A pp. 1994) (Hous e I) w her e the U t ah C our tof A ppeal s hel d “the pr es ence of an ‘ open and obvi ous ’ dangeri s m er el yone fa ct orforthe tr i erof fa ctt o cons i derw hen as s es s i ng t he l i abi l i t yof the defendanti n a s tr i ctl i abi l i tycas e - - i tdoes not oper at e as a compl et e bart o t he i nj ur ed party ' s r ecove ry . ” I n Hous e v. A r m ourof A m er i ca, Inc , 9 2 9 P . 2 d 3 4 0 (U tah 1 9 9 6 ) (Ho u se II) th e U tah S u p rem e C o u rt cl ar i fi ed thi s hol di ng, concl udi ng the obvi ous nes s of an i nher entdangeri n a pr oductcan a ctas a compl et e bart o a pr oduct s l i abi l i tyact i on i f the dange r c a n n o t b e e c o n o m ic a lly a lle v ia te d . Id. at344. H enr i e al s o poi nt s t o Mulher i n v. In g e rs o ll- R a n dC o ., 6 2 8 P . 2 d 1 3 0 1 (U tah 1 9 8 1 ), w h ere the U tah S u p rem e C o u rtT he part i es ful l ybr i efe d both the obj ect i ve and s ubj ect i ve t es t s t o the 3 d istric t co u rt. -10- a n n o u n c e d th a t th e c o m p a ra tiv e fa u lt p ri n c ip le s e n u n c ia te d in U ta h C o d e A n n . § 78- 27- 38 appl i ed w i t h equal for ce i n s tr i ctpr oductl i abi l i tyact i ons . H e mai nt ai ns t he appl i cat i on of compar at i ve fa ul tcombi ned w i th hi s evi dence of a s afe rdes i gn i ndi cat es t he U t ah court s w oul d notbarhi s cl ai m even though he knew of the fix tu re ’s d a n g e r. C o n tra ryto H e n rie ’s c o n ten tio n s, h o w e v e r, n o n e o f th e se d e c isio n s n e g a te th e n e e d fo r a p lain tiff to m e e t th e sta tu to ryd e fin iti o n o f a n “ u n re a so n a b ly danger ous ” pr oductt o s ucce ed on a s tr i ctl i abi l i tycl ai m . W hi l e w e agr ee w i th t he u lt im ate c o n clus ion o f th e d istri ct co u rtthat H en ri e fail ed to sh o w a n ec essa ry e lem e n t o f

h is c laim , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t n e e d to re a c h th e su bjec tiv e tes t. 3 See G om es v. Wood , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 3 -34 (10 th C ir . ) (“T h is C o u rtm ayaffirm t he di s t r i ctcour ton anygr ound adequa t el ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d s o l ong as t he p a rt ie s h a v e h a d a fa iro p p o rt u n ity to a d d re s s th a t g ro u n d .” ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 676 ( 2006) . H enr i e fa i l ed t o demonstr at e a de fec t i ve pr oductundert he o bje c tiv e c o n s u m e r t e s t, th e fir s t p a rt o f U ta h ’s tw o -p a rt te s t. T he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned the fi xtur e w as unr eas onabl ydanger ous under t he obj ect i ve cons um ert es ts ol el yon H enr i e’ s evi dence of a s afe rand ec onom i cal al t ernat i ve des i gn. A l t hough t hi s evi dence i s an es s ent i al partof hi s cl ai m , by i t s el f i ti s notenough. Forexampl e, i n Br o wn , t he pl ai nt i ff’ s pr oduct i on of anU t ah adopt ed R es t at ement( Second) of Tort s § 402A i n E r nes tW. Hahn, 4 In c ., v . A r m c o S te e l C o ., 6 0 1 P . 2 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 6 -58 (U tah 1 9 7 9 ). -11- e x p e rt re p o rt p ro p o sin g a sa fe r d e sig n c o u ld n o t sa v e h is s trict lia b ili tyc laim in th e a b s e n c e o f

a p ro d u c t d e fe c t. S e e Br o wn , 3 2 8 F . 3 d at 12 7 9 , 1 2 8 2 -83 . In addi t i on t o a s afe ral t ernat i ve des i gn, H enr i e musts how “the pr oductw as danger ous t o an ext entbey ond w hi ch w oul d be cont empl at ed bythe or di naryand prudentbuy er , cons um erorus erof thatpr oducti n thatcomm uni ty . ” U t ah C ode A n n . § 7 8 -1 5 -6 (2 ). T h is s e n te n c e is m o re f u lly e x p la in e d in c o m m e n t g , R es t at ement ( Second) T or t s § 402A , w hi ch cons i der s a defect i ve condi t i on t o be 4 pr es ent“onl yw her e the pr oducti s , att he t i m e i tl eave s t he s el l er ' s hands , i n a c o n d iti o n n o t co n tem p late d b yth e u lti m a te c o n su m e r, w h ich w ill b e u n re a so n a b ly danger ous t o hi m . ” Fur t her , comm entI s t at es , “U nr eas onabl ydanger ous ” means “d an g ero u s to a n ex tent b ey o n d that w h ich w o u ld b e c o n tem p lat ed b ythe o rdin ary cons um erw ho pur chas es i t , w i t h the or di naryknow l edge c om m on t o the comm uni t yas t o i t s char act er i s t i cs . ” I n Ho u se II, the U tah S u p rem e C o u rtrec o g n ized the “ so p h ist icated u ser” m aybe the “c om m uni t y ” forw hi ch a pr oducti s des i gned. T her e, t he defendant ar gued a pol i ce offi cercoul d notbr i ng a pr oduct s l i abi l i tycl ai m agai ns tt he m a n u fa c tu re r o f

b o d ya rm o r b e c a u se th e p o lice o ffice r w a s p a rt o f a h ig h ly t r ai ned comm uni t y . T he courts t at ed: A s th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls n o ted , d e fe n d a n ts n e e d n o t sh o w th a t L t. H o u se a c tu a llyk n e w a b o u t th e d a n g e r b u t th a t th e “ c o m m u n ity ” to-12-

w h ic h L t. H o u s e b e lo n g s “ g e n e ra lly k n o w s ” a b o u t th e d a n g e r . . . . I n ot herw or ds , t o s us t ai n a conc l us i on thatno dut yw as ow ed t o the us erbeca us e of hi s pr ofes s i onal s t atus , the courtm us t“fi nd the r ecor d evi dence t o be undi s put ed thatthe us eractual l yknew of the dangerort hat , bas ed on the us er ' s s peci al expert i s e and the ci r cumst ance s of the tr ans act i on, the s uppl i err eas onabl ycoul d have b e lie v e d th a t h e k n e w o f th e d a n g e r.” Hou se , 9 2 9 P .2 d a t 3 4 5 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); see also Ga i n e s - Ta b b v . ICI Expl os i ves , USA , Inc. , 1 6 0 F . 3 d 6 1 3 , 6 2 4 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( a p p l y i n g Ok l a h o ma l aw ) ( T he cons um erw as a fa r m erand ther e w as no i ndi cat i on the amm oni um n itrate w a s le ss sa fe th a n e x p e c ted b yfa rm e rs.); Lam erv. McKee Indus
. , Inc. , 721 P. 2d 611 ( A l as ka 1986) ( T he or di narycons um erw as the pr ofes s i onal gar age d o o r rep airm an an d a n u m b er o f e x p erien ce d rep airm en test ifi ed p rod u ct fa il u re w a s a su rp rise .); R oj as v. Li nds ay M f g. C o. , 701 P. 2d 210 ( I daho 1985) ( T he or di naryus erw i t h or di naryknow l edge c om m on t o the comm uni tyw oul d be, for p u rp o se s o f

th is c a se , a fa rm e r o r a q u a lifie d m a in ten a n c e p e rso n .). H e re , H e n rie and the otherpai nt er s w er e s i m i l ar l ym ember s of a s m al l , pr ofes s i onal gr oup of pai nt er s w el l - acqua i nt ed w i t h t he equi pm entati s s ue her e. T he uncontr adi ct ed evi dence r evea l s N G C m anufa ctur ed and de s i gned el even f i xtur es s peci fi cal l yforus e bythe pr ofes s i onal pai nt er s atH i l l Fi el d. T he r ecor d r evea l s no ot herus e orcont empl at ed us e forthe equi pm ent . A l l the pai nt er s r egul ar l yus ed the equi pm entand H enr i e does notar gue the other pai nt er s w or ki ng atH i l l Fi el d w er e notful l yaw ar e, as he w as , of the dange ri f the p ins w ere p u ll ed w ith o u t sufficien t m an p o w er to c o n tr o l th e a ir cra ft p art’sT o t he ext entourdeci s i on i n B each am v. L ee-Norse , 7 1 4 F .2 d 1 0 1 0 (1 0 th 5 C ir . 1 9 8 3 ), a p p lie s to H e n ri e ’s a rg u m e n t, th e in s ta n t fa c ts d is tin g u is h th is c a s e . I n B eacham , w e c o n side red w h ethe r subjecti v e e v iden ce , inclu d ing the p lai n ti ff ’s tra in in g a n d e x p e rie n c e , w a s re lev a n t to sh o w th e p ro d u c t w a s n o t u n re a so n a b ly d a n g e ro u s . Id . at 1 0 1 5 -1 6 . N o tin g U tah ’s s tatu to ryd e fin iti o n o f u n re a so n a b ly danger ous , w e s t at ed: T h e sta tu to ryd e fin iti o n o n lylists fa c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in det erm i ni ng w hethera pr oducti s unr eas onabl ydanger ous . W her e a us erencount er s t he defecti nvol unt ar i l ybeca us e a s afe tydevi ce w as notpr ovi ded, evi dence of hi s actual know l edge, t r ai ni ng, or exper i ence i s of onl yl i m i t ed val ue: W e have di ffi cul tys eei ng how t he know l edge of

t he dange r ous nes s can a l l evi at e the dange r ous condi t i on i nas m uch as t he per form ance bypl ai nt i ff of his as s igned tas ks s ubj ected hi m t o i nj ur y r egar dl es s of

the car e ex er cis ed . Id . ( emphasi s added) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, pr i or r eques t s l eadi ng t o m odi fi cat i on of the fi xtur es demonstr at e H enr i e di d nothave to w o rk w ith h is e q u ip m e n t in a n “ a s is ” c o n d iti o n . In a d d iti o n , H e n rie con t ri bu t ed to the creat i on of the proced ures for w orki ng w i th the fi xtur es. T hu s, unl i ke B eacham , H enr i e ca nnots how hi s w or k w i th the fi xtur e i n i t s condi t i on at t h e t i m e o f

t h e a c c i d e n tw a s i n v o l u n t a ry. -13- des cent . I ndeed, t her e had be en no otheri nci dent s w her e a pa r t“s pun outof contr ol ” norw er e anyi nj ur i es caus ed bythe fi xtur es w hen us ed i n the norm al m anner , des pi t e thei rdai l yus e, unt i l the dat e of H enr i e’ s i nj ur y . T hus , ther e w as no defe ctbey ond w hatt hi s uni que comm uni tyof us er s , the B 2 St eal th B om ber pai nt er s , cont empl at ed. B eca us e H enr i e di d notes t abl i s h the fi xtur e w as an unr eas onabl ydanger ous pr oductunderthe obj ect i ve t es t , ther e w as no need for t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o a p p l y t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l i n q u i ry. 5 A s hi s fi nal ar gum ent , H enr i e cl ai m s U t ah’ s pol i cys uppor t i ng i t s s tr i ct liab ili tysta tu tes re q u ire s u s to ig n o re th e sta tu to ryd e fin iti o n o f u n re a so n a b lyH enr i e ar gues , “undert he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on, . . . [k] ni ves can be 6 s tuck i n das hboar ds [, ] [s ] eatbel t s r emoved fr om car s [, ] [e] l ectr i cal w i r i ng can be left ex p o sed [a n d ] [t]oy s m ayb e m ad e w ith raz o r sha rp e d g es.” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. a t 2 4 .) -14- d a n g e ro u s in th e p re s e n c e o f a n e c o n o m ic a l a lte rn a tiv e d e s ig n . See Ber r y v. B e e c h A irc ra

ft , 717 P. 2d 670, 673 ( U t ah 1985) ( “[T] he effec tof s tr i ctl i abi l i tyhas no do ub tbeen t o en cou rage saferm anu facturi ng pract i ces and produ ctdesi gn s, t her ebyr educi ng t he i nci dence of dea th and i nj ury . ”) . A ccor di ng t o H enr i e, i f the sta tu to ryd e fin iti o n b a rs h is c laim , m a n u fa c tu re rs in U tah w o u ld b e e n c o u ra g e d to o ffe r o b v io u s ly d a n g e ro u s p ro d u c ts ra th e r t h a n s a fe r p ro d u c ts . In a d d itio n , a m anufa ctur ercoul d avoi d l i abi l i tyno m at t erhow poor l ythe pr oducti s des i gned s o l o n g a s t h e d a n g e ri s o b v i o u s . To p r o v e h i s p o i n th e p o s i t s s e v e r a l e x tr e me exampl es . W hi l e w e ques t i on t he mar ket abi l i tyof s om e of hi s hypothet i cal

6 produ ct s, his argum ent s ho uld be dir ect ed els ew here. T he U t ah legi sl ature cho se to d e fin e th e ter m “ u n re a so n a b lyd a n g e ro u s” fo r th e p u rp o se o f p ro d u c ts liab ili ty i n U t ah. A s t he U t ah Supr eme C our thas obs erved, i ti s t he U t ah l egi s l atur e w ho m us t“cha nge and modi fyt he l aw t hatgoverns r el at i ons betw een i ndi vi dual s as s oci etyevol ves and condi t i ons r equi r e. ” B erry , 7 1 7 P .2 d a t 6 7 6 . It i s n o t o u r ro le t o r ew r i t e the U t ah s t atut e. T he gl as s fi xtur e w as not“dange r ous t o an ext ent b ey o n d w h ich w o u ld b e c o n tem p lat ed b ythe o rdin aryan d p rud en t bu y er, c o n s u m e r o r u s e r i n th a t c o m m u n ity.” U ta h C o d e A n n . § 7 8 -1 5 -6 (2 ). B. Ne g l i g e n c e Cl a i mA ‘ cont act - t r i p’ m odel “al l ow s i t s oper at ort o di s char ge nai l s r egar dl es s of 7 w hethert he o perat or fi rs tpu l l s the g un ' s tri gg er ordep res ses the n ai l er' s nose cont actel ement , as l ong as bot h ar e us ed. T he ‘ s equent i al - tr i p’ m odel , on the ot herhand, al s o m anufa ctur ed and s ol d bySt anl ey , r equi r es t hatt he nos e cont act el ementbe depr es s ed fi r s tand the tr i ggerpul l ed s econd fort he nai l t o be d isc h a rg e d . T h e ‘se q u e n tial-trip ’ m e c h a n ism m a k e s it m o re d ifficu lt fo r n a ils to be di s char ged uni nt ent i onal l yand i s gener al l ycons i der ed t o be s afe r . ” Id . at318- 19. -15- T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp a r s e d He n r i e ’ s d e s i g n n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m i n t o two se p a ra te a lleg a tio n s: N G C w a s n e g lig e n t in fa ili n g to 1 ) “ in sta ll a s a fe ty m e c h a n ism ” a n d 2 ) c o n d u c t a h a z a rd a n a ly sis w h e n d e sig n in g th e fix tu re . (D ist. Co u r tOr d e ra t1 5 . ) As t o t h e fi r s ta l l e g a t i o n , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d NGC di d notow e a dutyt o r efr ai n fr om m arket i ng a non- defe ct i ve pr oductw hen a s afe r m od el i s avai l able, rel y i ng on t he U t ah S up rem e C ou rt ’s ho l ding i s Sl is z e v. Stanl ey- B os t i t ch , 9 7 9 P . 2 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 1 (U tah 1 9 9 9 ). T h e c o u rtd eterm ined H en ri e’s s econd a l l egat i on m us tfai l beca us e hi s onl yevi dence of N G C ’ s fai l ur e t o conduct a haz ar d anal y s i s w as hi s expert ’ s concl us i on t o thateffectbas ed s ol el yon o b se rv a tio n o f

th e fix tu re . H e n rie a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt w a s w ro n g o n b o th cou nts . I n Slisze , the p lain tiff w a s inju re d w h e n a c o -w o rk e r, u sin g a “ c o n tac t trip n ail er” tr ied to “toe -na il ” tw o b o ard s an d the n ail ri co ch eted into the p lai n ti ff ’s

7 head. H e br oughta cl ai m bas ed on s tr i ctl i abi l i tyas w el l as negl i gence . D ur i ng th e trial, th e c o u rt a d m itt e d O S H A sta n d a rd s to sh o w c o m p lian c e w ith “go vernm ent s t and ards, ” creat i ng a rebut t able pr esum pti on of n on -defect i ven ess-16-

underU t ah C ode A nn. § 78- 15- 6( 3) . W hi l e the U t ah Supr eme C our tr ecogni zed a pl ai nt i ff mayj oi nt l ybr i ng a s t r i ctl i abi l i tyand negl i gence cl ai m , i tfound Sl i s ze h a d fa ile d to e s ta b lis h a n yd u ty, a n e c e s s a ry p re d ic a te in a n e g lig e n c e c la im . Slisze , 979 P. 2d at319- 20. T he courtconcl uded “[ T ] her e i s no dut yt o m ake a s afe [pr oduct ] s afe r ” and no dutyt o w arn beca us e the al l eged da ngerof the nai l er w as open and obvi ous . ” Id . at320. H enri e argues Slisze i s i nappl i cabl e bec aus e the foc us of hi s cl ai m i s on NGC ’ s c o n d u c ta n d k n o wl e d g e , n o tth e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e p r o d u c t . He m ai nt ai ns B r amber g’ s evi dence es t abl i s hed a s t andar d of ca r e r equi r i ng a m a n u fa c tu re r to c o n d u c t a h a z a rd a n a ly sis to e n a b le th e m a n u fa c tu re r to “el i m i nat e the dange r ; guar d agai ns tthe dange r ; and w arn agai ns tthe dange r . ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at32. ) N G C ’ s engi neeracknow l edged N G C had notconduct ed a n yh a z a rd a n a ly sis in d e sig n in g a n d b u ild in g th e d e v ice . A c c o rd in g to B r amber g, had i tdone s o, N G C w oul d have i dent i fi ed i t s pai nt i ng devi ce a s in h e re n tlyu n sta b le a n d w o u ld h a v e b e e n a b le to e lim in a te th a t d a n g e r b o th e a sily and ec onom i cal l y . H enr i e r eas ons thatbeca us e U t ah’ s s tr i ctl i abi l i tys t atut es do notaffectcomm on l aw negl i gence cl ai m s , the “ope n and obvi ous ” cha r act erof t he defects houl d notbarhi s negl i gence cl ai m . I ts houl d m er el ybe a fact orfor cons i der at i on “w hen det erm i ni ng the compar at i ve fa ul tof both par t i es . ” Hou se , 8 8 6 P .2 d a t 5 4 8 ; see also Misener v. G en. Motors , 9 2 4 F . S u p p . 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 ( D. U t ah 1996) ( ci t i ng D ans i e v. A nders on Lum berC o. , 878 P. 2d 1155, 1159 ( U t ahT he Supr eme C our tr eac hed thi s concl us i on aft erw ei ghi ng the fa ct or s s et 8 outi n A MS . Slisze , 979 P. 2d at320. I n A MS , t he U t ah Supr eme C our ts etoutt he fo llo w in g fa c to rs to c o n sid e r w h e n im p o sin g a d u tysu fficie n t to su sta in a c laim o f n e g lig e n c e : W h e th e r th e law im p o se s a d u tyd o e s n o t d e p e n d u p o n fo re se e a b ili ty -17- C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (c laim s fo r n e g lig e n c e a re n o t g o v e rn e d b yth e P ro d u c ts L iab ili ty A ct).

“ It is c lea r th a t in n e g lig e n c e c a se s, a d e sig n e r h a s a ‘d u tyto d e sig n its p r o d u c ts o a s t o e l i m i n a t e a n y u n re a so n a b le r i s k of for es eea bl e i nj ury . ’ ” Huntv. E ST E ng’g, Inc. , 8 0 8 P .2 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 3 9 (U ta h A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). R es t at ement( Second) of Tort s § 398 ( 1965) , ci t ed i n Hunt , provides: A m anufa ctur erof a c hatt el m ade unde ra pl an ordes i gn w hi ch m a k e s it d a n g e ro u s fo r th e u se s fo r w h ich it i s m a n u fa c tu re d is s ubj ectt o l i abi l i t yt o ot her s w hom he s houl d expec tt o us e the cha t t el ort o be enda nger ed byi t s pr obabl e us e forphy s i cal harm caus ed by hi s fai l ur e t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e i n the adopt i on of a s afe pl an ordes i gn. Id . H enr i e corr ect l ynot es N G C admi t t ed i tdi d notconducta haz ar d anal y s i s , an admi s s i on t he di s t r i ctcourtfai l ed t o r ecogni ze. B utthatdoes notchange the o u tc o m e . T he U t ah court s have s poken t o the dutyof a manufac tur eri n a negl i gence cl ai m . I n Slisze , the c o u rt a p p lied th e U tah tes t fo r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a d u ty e x is ts fo r t h e p u rp o s e s o f n e g lig e n c e c la im . Slisze , 979 P. 2d at320 ( appl y i ng t he t es ti n A MSSa l tIn d u s . , In c . v . Ma g n e s i u m C o r p . o f A m. , 942 P. 2d 315 ( U t ah 1997) ) . T he courtw as “notper s uaded thati ti s nece s s aryorw i s e t o r ecogni ze a

8al one. T he l i kel i hood of i nj ur y , the magni tude of the bur den of

guar di ng agai ns ti tand the cons equenc es of pl aci ng thatbur den upon defe ndant , m us tal s o be t aken i nt o acc ount . A dutym ayal s o be found on the bas i s of r eas onabl e mut ual r el i ance , vol unt aryconduct w hich i ncreases the ri sk of h arm , and gen eral po l i cycon si derat i on s. A MS , 9 4 2 P .2 d a t 3 2 1 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). W e r ecogni ze the di s t r i ctcourtappl i ed the s econd, i ndi vi dual i zed pr ong 9 t o det erm i ne the pr oductw as notunr eas onabl ydanger ous and H enr i e’ s ar gum ent on appea l addr es s es t he i s s ues as s oci at ed w i th the appl i cat i on of the s ubj ect i ve -18- dut yr equi r i ng m anufa ctur er s t o di s cont i nue manufactur i ng l es s s afe but non- defe ct i ve pr oduct s ” bec aus e ther e had be en “no s how i ng thatthe l i kel i hood of i nj ur yw oul d be r educe d enough t o out w ei gh the cos t s and bur dens of di s cont i nuat i on. ” Id . W hi l e H enr i e r ecogni zes U t ah has det erm i ned “ther e i s no dut y[i n a negl i gence cl ai m ] t o m ake a s afe pr oducts afe r , ” hi s ar gum entr el i es on th e p re m ise th a t th e d e fin iti o n fo u n d in U tah ’s s trict p ro d u c ts liab ili tysta tu te cannotbe tr ans ferr ed t o a negl i gence act i on forthe purpos e of de t erm i ni ng w h e th e r a p ro d u c t is sa fe . H o w e v e r, th a t w a s p re c ise lyth e m e th o d e m p lo y e d in Matherv. C at er

pi l l arTrac t orC or

por at i on , 533 P. 2d 717, 719 ( A r i z. C t . A pp. 1975) , ci t ed w i t h appr oval i n Slisze . I n Mather , the A riz o n a C o u rt o f A p p e a ls stat ed w h en “the u n d erly ing theo ri es a s to b o th n eg li g en ce an d str ictli ab il ityw ere t he s ame, t o- w i t , defe ct i ve des i gn . . . I n bot h i ns t ance s appel l anthad t o pr ove t hatt he [pr oduct ] w as i n a defect i ve condi t i on and unr eas onabl ydanger ous . ” Id . U t ah has defi ned defect i ve condi t i on and unr eas onabl ydanger ous forgener al purpos es i n i t s obj ect i ve t es t for s tr i ct l i abi l i ty . T he over l ap betw een a n 9pr ong t o a negl i gence cl ai m . H ow ever , w e nee d notr eac h the s econd s ubj ect i ve

a n a ly sis in th is c a se a n d d o n o t ex p re ss a n o p in io n w h e th e r a d iffe re n t re su lt w o u ld o b ta in u n d e r t h e s u bje c tiv e te s t. -19- unr eas onabl ys afe des i gn and a ne gl i gentdes i gn has been r ecogni zed byother c o u rt s a s w e ll. S e e G o lo n ka v . G e n . Mo to rs C o r p ., 6 5 P .3 d 9 5 6 , 9 6 4 (A riz . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) (“B yfin d ing G M n o t atfa u ltfo r stri ct l iabili tyd esig n d efec t, the ju ry n e c e ss a rilyc o n c lu d e d th a t itw o u ld h a v e b e e n re a so n a b le fo r a m a n u fa c tu re r to h a v e p lac e d G M ' s tra n sm iss io n in to th e stre a m o f c o m m e rc e .”). A s a re su lt, beca us e ther e i s no dut yt o m ake a s afe pr oducts afe rand bec aus e the fi xtur e w as n o t defec ti v e u n d er the co n su m er e x p ec tat ion testin § 7 8 -15 -6, th e d istri ct co u rt c o r r e c t l yg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n fa v o ro f NGC. AFF I RM ED .