Opinion ID: 2645901
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment on Other Claims

Text: A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We exercise plenary review over a district court’s grant of summary judgment, and view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Nat’l Amusements Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra, 716 F.3d 57, 62 (3d Cir. 2013). Except for claims for breach of an express warranty, all claims for harm caused by a product under New Jersey law, regardless of the theory underlying the claim, are governed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act (PLA). N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C- 4 1(b)(3). The PLA encompasses “virtually all possible causes of action relating to harm caused by consumer and other products.” In re Lead Paint Litig., 924 A.2d 484, 503 (N.J. 2007). The PLA does not recognize negligence or implied breach of warranty as separate claims for harm caused by a product. See Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 313 (3d Cir. 1999). Rather, the PLA is the exclusive remedy for such actions and other claims are subsumed within the statutory cause of action. See id. Calender properly brought this action under the PLA. The District Court was correct that Calender may not proceed with his common-law claims of negligence and implied breach of warranty because those claims are subsumed by the PLA. We will therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment for NVR on those claims. The PLA provides that a seller or manufacturer may be liable if a product does not contain adequate warnings or instructions. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-2. However, no duty to warn exists where the danger presented by a product is “open and obvious.” McWilliams v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 987 F.2d 200, 202–03 (3d Cir. 1993); Mathews v. Univ. Loft Co., 903 A.2d 1120, 1124–25 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-3(a)(2) (stating that seller or manufacturer is not liable if the unsafe aspect of the product is an “inherent characteristic of the product . . . that would be recognized by the ordinary person”). We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that the danger that one might fall while attempting to enter or exit the attic through the open access panel in the ceiling is open and obvious to an ordinary person. Cf. Mathews, 903 A.2d at 1124 (danger of falling from six-foot-high loft bed was open and obvious). We will affirm the District 5 Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of NVR on this claim because there was no duty to warn. Finally, the District Court was correct that Diane Calender’s loss of consortium claim was derivative of James Calender’s personal injury claims and is therefore not viable without those claims. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on the loss of consortium claim.