Opinion ID: 2590307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Defendant is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Claim of Strict Liability

Text: Defendant asserts it is entitled to summary judgment on the claim of strict liability. In a products liability action based upon the theory of strict liability, the focus is upon the product, itself, rather than upon the activities of the manufacturer. McLaughlin, 778 P.2d at 64. A plaintiff may recover under a strict liability theory for his loss or injury resulting from a defective product that entered the stream of commerce in the absence of fault by the manufacturer, designer, or distributor. Id. A product manufacturer who sells a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous may be liable for physical harm to a user if the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. Rohde, ¶ 17, 165 P.3d at 437 ( quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A( l ) (1965)) (other citation omitted). Accordingly, Wyoming had adopted five elements of strict liability for the sale of a defective product: (1) that the sellers were engaged in the business of selling the product that caused the harm; (2) that the product was defective when sold; (3) that the product was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; (4) that the product was intended to and did reach the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold; and (5) that the product caused physical harm to the plaintiff/consumer. Rohde, ¶ 18, 165 P.3d at 437 (citation omitted). An inference of defectiveness arises if a prima facie case can be presented that there was no abnormal use of the product or that there were no reasonable secondary causes for the defect. Id. ¶ 19, 165 P.3d at 437. In the current case, there has been no showing of strict liability. There has been no showing that the roof bolter was not reasonably safe. Plaintiff's injuries were not caused by a defect in the roof bolter but were caused by rock falling from the unbolted mine ceiling. Summary judgment is granted on the strict liability claim.