Opinion ID: 20741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Manufacturing Defect and Negligent Inspection

Text: 18 The district court held that the plaintiff presented no evidence of a manufacturing defect and granted defendants summary judgment on that claim. The claim for negligent inspection presumes that a manufacturing defect existed, thus defendants were granted summary judgment on that claim as well. 6 19 Plaintiff argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because fact issues exist with regard to this count. At the heart of the plaintiff's argument is a general specification paragraph found in the approved specifications for the T-34C issued by the Navy: 20 Where any vital moving part passes close to a fixed structure or item of equipment, the point nearest contact shall be located or arranged that gravity will normally clear this point of loosearticles or cause them to take remote positions where they cannot jam or interfere with the moving part. 21 Plaintiff claims that the design of the control stick (and its ability to inadvertently unbuckle the crotch strap at the full-aft position) violate this specification and thus constitute a manufacturing defect. Defendants argue that the cockpit design conformed to the specifications for the cockpit. 22 We agree with the district court that this specification cited by plaintiffs had to do with production techniques and not with cockpit design. 23