Opinion ID: 2979965
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: taser

Text: The district court, after finding that Plaintiffs had abandoned several of their claims against TASER, granted summary judgment to TASER on Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiffs have only appealed the grant of summary judgment on the product liability claim, which is governed by the Tennessee Products Liability Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-102(6). Plaintiffs’ claim is that warnings issued by TASER failed to identify the scope of the danger and harm that could result from the repeated use of the taser on a subject. To establish a product-liability claim under an inadequate-warning theory, the plaintiff must show that (1) the warning was inadequate; (2) the product was rendered unreasonably dangerous because of the inadequate warning; and (3) the inadequate warning proximately caused the claimed injury. See Barnes v. Kerr Corp., 418 F.3d 583, 590 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The Tennessee Supreme Court has provided several factors for determining whether a product’s warning is adequate: (1) whether the warning adequately indicated the scope of the danger of the product; (2) whether the warning communicated the seriousness of the harm that could result from misuse of the product; (3) whether the physical aspects of the warning would alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger; (4) whether the warning is a simple directive that fails to indicate the consequences that might follow from a failure to heed the warning; and (5) whether the means to convey the warning were appropriate. Id. (citing Pittman v. Upjohn Co., 890 S.W.2d 425, 429 (Tenn. 1994)). - 10 - No. 09-6083 Bud Lee, et al v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville, et al The warning at issue was sent by TASER on June 28, 2005—less than three months prior to the incident at issue in the instant litigation—to the NMPD on the subject of “Restraint During TASER System Application.” R. 347-10, Training Bulletin, at 1. The bulletin was issued as a result of TASER’s belief “that there may be a training issue where arrest teams are avoiding touching the subject during the TASER device application.” Id. The one-page bulletin contained five numbered points, including in relevant part: 1. It is important to emphasize that arrest teams can handle the subject during a TASER device application. Failure to begin restraint procedures during a TASER device application can unnecessarily prolong the duration or number of TASER device applications administered to a given subject. 2. Repeated, prolonged, and/or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER electrical discharge may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration, particularly when the probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm. Users should avoid prolonged, extended, uninterrupted discharges or extensive multiple charges whenever practicable in order to minimize the potential for overexertion of the subject or potential impairment of full ability to breathe over a protracted time period. 3. Particularly when dealing with persons showing symptoms of excited delirium, use of the TASER system should be combined with physical restraint techniques to minimize the total duration of the struggle and minimize the total duration of TASER system stimulation. Excited delirium is a potentially fatal condition caused by a complex set of physiological conditions including over-exertion of the subject and inability for sufficient respiration to maintain normal blood chemistry. These subjects are at significant and potentially fatal health risks from further prolonged exertion and/or impaired breathing. Id. TASER concluded the bulletin as follows: “Please distribute this bulletin and the attached warnings to all TASER device operators within your agency.” Id. The “attached warnings” were the updated overall warnings about the TASER device, which incorporated the specific warnings that were contained in the bulletin. Id. at 2–3. - 11 - No. 09-6083 Bud Lee, et al v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville, et al In granting summary judgment for TASER, the district court made three findings regarding this claim. First, the court held that TASER’s warning was adequate as a matter of law because the bulletin: (1) adequately indicated the scope of the danger; (2) communicated the seriousness of the harm that could result from misuse; (3) would provide an alert to a reasonably prudent person because the format was concise and focused; and (4) the use of a separate and specific bulletin was an appropriate means to convey the warning. Lee, 596 F. Supp. 2d at 1128. Furthermore, the court found that Plaintiffs made no attempt to show that the two other elements of the failure to warn claim—that the allegedly defective warning made the product unreasonably dangerous and that the allegedly defective warning proximately caused Lee’s—were satisfied. Id. On appeal, Plaintiffs have made the same mistake, focusing their entire argument on whether TASER’s warning was adequate as a matter of law, and ignoring the other two elements of the claim. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to challenge the district court’s findings on these two elements, and we decline to reach the question of whether the warning was adequate as a matter of law. See B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 265 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that we may affirm a district court’s judgment on the basis that the appellant has failed to challenge necessary findings).