Court Opinion

ID: 9366246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:22.436419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.847497
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50542     Document: 00516425592         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/09/2022

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                           August 9, 2022
                                  No. 21-50542                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

   Sasha Begum Norman, individually and as next friend of minor child S.
   N.; Shane Norman, individually and as next friend of minor child S. N.,

                                                           Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                      versus

   Bodum USA, Incorporated,

                                                           Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:19-CV-494

   Before Higginson, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
         Sasha and Shane Norman seek to hold Bodum USA, Inc., responsible
   for an alleged manufacturing defect in one of its French press coffee makers
   (“the Press”) that they claim caused it to malfunction and injure their young
   child. The district court granted summary judgment for Bodum, concluding
   that no reasonable jury could find that the Press deviated from its intended
   design. We disagree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further
   proceedings.
Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                     No. 21-50542

                                           I.
          Like most standard French presses, the Press consists of a cylindrical
   glass beaker or carafe equipped with a metal plunger. Ground coffee is placed
   in the carafe and hot water is added. After the coffee brews for several
   minutes, the user presses down on the plunger knob to push the coffee
   grounds toward the bottom of the carafe. To keep the coffee grounds from
   escaping upwards, the plunger has a circular press mechanism surrounded by
   a tightly wound spring coil. The spring coil is enveloped within a protective
   mesh that sits against the interior of the glass carafe.
          In 2018, the Normans allowed their five-year-old child to help them
   prepare the morning coffee, as they had frequently done before. As the child
   pressed down on the plunger knob, the carafe shattered, causing hot coffee
   to erupt and burn 13% of his body. As a result, the child had to undergo
   multiple medical procedures and was left “horribly disfigured and
   permanently scarred.”       Bodum does not challenge that the Normans
   purchased the Press less than two years prior to the incident, brand-new and
   in its original packaging, and never modified or repaired it.
          After the case was removed under diversity jurisdiction, the district
   court granted Bodum’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded
   that the Normans had failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a
   reasonable jury to find that a manufacturing defect exists. We disagree.
                                          II.
          Our court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
   novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. Ibarra v. UPS,
   695 F.3d 354, 355 (5th Cir. 2012). We must view “all the facts and evidence
   in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Smith v. Chrysler Grp.,
   L.L.C., 909 F.3d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is improper
   where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

                                           2
Case: 21-50542       Document: 00516425592           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                      No. 21-50542

   the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
   (1986).
            Texas law governs the Normans’ claim. Under Texas law, “[a]
   manufacturing defect exists when a product deviates, in its construction or
   quality, from the specifications or planned output in a manner that renders it
   unreasonably dangerous.” Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600
   (Tex. 2004). See also Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797,
   800 (Tex. 2006) (same). A plaintiff “must prove that the product was
   defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer and that the defect was
   a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Id. (quotations omitted). See
   also Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600.
            A manufacturing defect may be established exclusively through
   circumstantial evidence. See Johnson v. Michelin Tire Corp., 812 F.2d 200,
   207 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Turner v. Gen. Mtrs. Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844, 848
   (Tex. 1979)); Ford Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 9 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. App. 1999).
   But product failure or malfunction, standing alone, does not generally suffice
   to prove a manufacturing defect. Casey v. Toyota Motor Eng’g & Mfg. N. Am.,
   Inc., 770 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2014). Rather, plaintiffs must allege a
   specific deviation from the product’s intended design that allegedly caused
   the injury. Id. See also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 42 (Tex.
   2007).
            This deviation element “serves the essential purpose of distinguishing
   a manufacturing defect from a design defect.” Id. See also Cooper Tire &
   Rubber Co., 204 S.W.3d at 808. If there is no deviation from the defendant’s
   intended design, then the design itself is the alleged problem. In that
   situation, plaintiffs must bring a design defect claim, which requires proof of
   an additional “safer alternative design” element. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42
   (citation omitted). In a manufacturing defect case, by contrast, the plaintiff

                                           3
Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                    No. 21-50542

   must present proof of a manufacturer’s intended design, from which the
   actual product in question deviated as a result of a defect in the
   manufacturing process. Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 434
   (Tex. 1997); Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42; Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46
   S.W.3d 829, 847 (Tex. 2000).
                                        III.
           In their complaint, the Normans allege that the Press shattered during
   ordinary use, due to a specific manufacturing defect: an end-piece of the
   Press’s metal coil that, instead of being tucked inwards, protruded outwards
   beyond the protective mesh. The Normans claim that this defect permitted
   the sharp, rough-cut end of the metal coil to come into direct contact with
   the glass carafe during ordinary use, likely causing a scratch that, when
   combined with thermal stress from the hot water, caused the carafe to
   shatter. To show that the alleged defect was present when the Press left
   Bodum’s control, the Normans point to French press coil assemblies
   advertised on Bodum’s website that also contain an outwardly protruding
   coil.
           To further support their manufacturing defect claim, the Normans
   offered the following evidence: reports and documents corroborating their
   core theory that it is “Glass 101” that uncut metal should not touch glass;
   Bodum’s instruction and owner’s manuals that came with the French Press,
   along with Bodum’s “ornamental design patent” for the French Press, each
   of which contain illustrations of French presses without protruding coils; and
   testimony from Bodum’s CEO confirming that Bodum recommends
   consumers “use plastic or wooden tool[s] rather than metallic” so as to
   prevent scratching that could lead to fracture, and acknowledging that an
   “unfurled” “steel wire” “could be a manufacturing problem.”

                                         4
Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                    No. 21-50542

          In addition, the Normans designated A. William Lingnell, an engineer
   with expertise on glass-safety, as their liability expert. Lingnell analyzed the
   remains of the Press, two exemplar French presses of identical make and
   model, and Bodum’s various instruction and owner’s manuals. And he drew
   several key conclusions.
          First, he determined that the protruding coil present in the Press
   deviates from what must be Bodum’s intended design. He explained that the
   purpose of the mesh spring that envelops the metal coil is to keep the coil
   “separated from the glass . . . averting contact between the edge of the coil
   and glass.” This conclusion is consistent with the district court’s finding that
   “the metal mesh is intended to engulf the coil so that the coil does not come
   into contact with the glass.” In support of his conclusion, Lingnell points to
   Bodum’s warnings not to use metal objects within the Press lest they scratch
   the interior. He also explains that “one of the most damaging and well-
   known exposures with respect to glass strength is glass-to-metal contact”—
   and “[t]his is particularly the case if [as here] the contacting metal has
   unpolished rough edges.”
          Second, Lingnell concluded that, based on the fracture observed in the
   subject carafe, “the most probable cause of failure of the glass carafe is
   thermal stress coupled with damage to the inside surface of the glass carafe
   caused by glass-to-metal contact between the wire mesh and/or the rough-
   cut edge of the perimeter spring.”
          And third, Lingnell explained that “the subject product’s
   manufacturing defect, a protruding steel rough-cut of a coil, came into

                                          5
Case: 21-50542         Document: 00516425592               Page: 6      Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                          No. 21-50542

   contact and damaged the lip of the French Press’ carafe, eventually leading
   to a thermal-stress fracture.”1
                                               IV.
           The district court found that none of the Normans’ proffered
   evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. As for
   Lingnell’s testimony, the court explained that Lingnell had examined “too
   small a sample” of exemplar French presses “from which to infer that the
   protruding coil was [a defect],” “especially . . . given the fact that, as
   Plaintiffs themselves point out, [some of] the coil assemblies advertised for
   sale on Bodum’s website contain a protruding coil.”
           But there are several problems with the district court’s reasoning. For
   one, Lingnell based his conclusion that the Press contained a manufacturing
   defect on more than just his analysis of the exemplars, including: (1) the
   standard principle that sharp metal edges should never come into contact
   with glass, (2) Bodum’s warnings to this effect, and (3) the appearance of the
   mesh that otherwise engulfs the spring coil and separates it from the glass
   carafe. And even if Lingnell’s conclusion were based on the exemplars alone,
   the district court’s criticism merely bears on the weight and credibility of
   Lingnell’s testimony—which is an issue for trial.
           Relatedly, the district court focused heavily on the fact that several
   coil assemblies advertised on Bodum’s website also contain a protruding coil.

           1
             Bodum filed motions before the district court to exclude Lingnell’s testimony and
   strike his report from the record, but the court never considered these motions on the
   merits. Instead, the district court dismissed them as moot after granting Bodum’s motion
   for summary judgment, and Bodum does not challenge that dismissal on appeal. So the
   question of whether Lingnell’s testimony is proper is not raised on appeal. On remand,
   Bodum is, of course, free to renew its motions to exclude this evidence for the district court
   to consider on the merits.

                                                 6
Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 7     Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                    No. 21-50542

   The district court concluded that this is “strong evidence that Bodum does
   not view [the protruding coil] as defective.”
          But an alternative interpretation of Bodum’s website marketing
   materials is also available. The website could demonstrate, as the Normans
   suggest, that Bodum tolerated, rather than intended, the deviation.
          This distinction is critical. In American Tobacco Co., 951 S.W.2d at
   434, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the pesticide residue
   commonly found in cigarettes, which results from the tobacco fumigation
   process, constitutes a manufacturing defect. The defendant manufacturer
   “conced[ed] that its cigarettes contain pesticide residue,” but argued that no
   manufacturing defect could be established, “because all cigarette
   manufacturers fumigate their tobacco with some type of pesticide, and
   residue inevitably remains after fumigation.” Id. at 433.
          The Texas Supreme Court rejected this argument. It held that a
   tolerated defect—even one that is tolerated and ubiquitous throughout an
   entire industry—is still a defect if it is unintended. Id. at 433–34. As the
   court explained, “[a]lthough pesticide residue may be found in many if not
   all cigarettes,” it still “could be a manufacturing defect” because pesticides
   are “not an ingredient [defendant] intended to incorporate.” Id. at 434.
          After all, if the opposite were true, then manufacturers could avoid
   product liability by merely declining to remedy known defects. As the court
   put it, “[s]imply because certain precautions or improvements . . . are
   universally disregarded by an entire industry does not excuse their
   omission.” Id.
                                       ***
          All told, the record contains at least the following evidence: (1)
   testimony from the Normans that they purchased their Press in brand-new

                                         7
Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592           Page: 8   Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                     No. 21-50542

   condition and never altered or repaired it; (2) a specific alleged defect
   consisting of a metal coil protruding beyond its mesh enclosure; (3) the
   district court’s finding that “the metal mesh was intended to completely
   engulf the metal coil,” which is corroborated by expert testimony; (4) an
   expert witness who examined the Press, tested it, compared it with two
   exemplars, and opined that the protruding metal coil deviated from the
   Press’s intended design, and caused the glass to fracture and ultimately
   shatter; and (5) the shattering of the Press’s glass carafe allegedly during
   ordinary use, albeit by a five-year-old child.
          Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Normans and
   drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, we find that a genuine issue
   of material fact exists as to whether the Press contained a manufacturing
   defect that caused the Normans’ injury.
          We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

                                           8