Opinion ID: 2974832
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Strict Product Liability

Text: Kentucky courts have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 402A, which states that a product is defective for the purposes of strict products liability if it is “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or his property.” Worldwide Equipment, Inc. v. Mullins, 11 S.W.3d 50, 55 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999). Further, to show that a component part is defective, a plaintiff must show that it was defective when it was sold by the manufacturer. Id. at 56. “A component part supplier has no duty, independent of the completed product manufacturer, to analyze the design of the completed product which incorporates its non-defective component part.” Id. at 57 (quoting Childress v. Gresen Mfg. Co., 888 F.2d 45, 49 (6th Cir. 1989)). The Waterfills claim that there is strong evidence that the Defendant’s product was defective, but the record is devoid of any such evidence. The record reveals that more than two dozen distributors have purchased Duraflex buckles over the past ten years, but plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that these buckles are not properly designed for these purchases, nor have they shown that the buckles are unreasonably dangerous. More to the point, plaintiffs present no evidence that the Duraflex buckle was unreasonably dangerous when it was incorporated into the safety harness at issue in this case. In his deposition, Mr. Waterfill was unable to recall whether the buckle broke before the strap or vice versa. Even if he testified definitively that the buckle broke first, this would not be evidence that the buckle was defective when incorporated into the safety strap. At most, it would suggest that the strap as assembled may be defective. -4- No. 06-5445 Waterfill v. National Molding Corporation The Waterfills claim they have raised a material issue of fact regarding the defectiveness of the buckle through the expert testimony of Dr. Vladimir Karwowski. According to the Waterfills, Dr. Karwowski has opined that the buckle was defective, and that the accident occurred when the buckle failed. The Waterfills’ characterization of Dr. Karwowski’s opinion, however, is the only presentation of his findings in the record. The Waterfills have failed to produce a report by Dr. Karwowski and have failed to make him available for a deposition by National Molding. Their bald assertion of Dr. Karwowski’s findings does not constitute evidence and is, therefore, insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Even if Dr. Karwowski had submitted an affidavit stating the claims made on his behalf, the Waterfills would still be unable to defeat National Molding’s summary judgment motion. The sum total of Dr. Karwowski’s opinion, as relayed by the Waterfills, is that the buckle broke first, causing the nylon strap to break.2 Since Mr. Waterfill weighed less than the designed capacity of the buckle, the Waterfills conclude, the failure of the defective buckle caused Mr. Waterfill to come crashing down to earth. Assuming that all this were in evidence, it is still not sufficient to show that the buckle was defective when National Molding sold it to its distributor. It only establishes that the buckle, as it existed years after its manufacture and as incorporated into the safety belt, was defective; under this scenario liability may attach to the manufacturer of the safety harness, but not to National Molding. Since the Waterfills cannot show that the buckle was defective when it was 2 National Molding proffered a contrasting opinion of which component part failed first. Harold Smith, P.E., opined that the strap failed first, and that failure caused the buckle to break. -5- No. 06-5445 Waterfill v. National Molding Corporation sold by National Molding, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to National Molding on the Waterfills’ strict products liability claim.