Plustwik v. Voss of Norway ASA , 559 F. App'x 785 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 27, 2014
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
THOMAS PLUSTWIK, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 13-4089
(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00757-DS)
VOSS OF NORWAY ASA, a New (D. Utah)
York corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Thomas Plustwik initiated the present suit in Utah state court
against Defendant VOSS of Norway following an injury, which Plaintiff alleged
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
he received from a bottle of Voss brand sparkling water which apparently
exploded upon being bumped by another bottle when the box containing both
bottles was jostled. The injury occurred while Plaintiff was stocking Voss bottled
water into a refrigerator near the bar seating area of a Salt Lake City restaurant
where Plaintiff was an employee.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in Utah State court alleging five causes of action:
(1) strict product liability, (2) negligence, (3) breach of express warranties, (4)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (5) breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose. The suit was subsequently removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Utah on diversity grounds. Once
in federal court, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The district
court concluded that Plaintiff failed to submit admissible evidence to support
necessary elements of all of his claims. Therefore, the district court entered
summary judgment in favor of Defendant.
Plaintiff now appeals that judgment. Having carefully considered the
record and briefs on appeal, we find no error in the district court’s ultimate
decision to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to
submit admissible evidence to support necessary elements of his strict product
liability claim. Under Utah law, a plaintiff in a strict product liability case must
show: “(1) that the product was unreasonably dangerous due to a defect or
defective condition, (2) that the defect existed at the time the product was sold,
-2-
and (3) that the defective condition was a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 328 F.3d 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Burns v. Cannondale Bicycle Co., 876 P.2d 415, 418 (Utah Ct. App.) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-703. “Accordingly,
it is not enough to simply show that the product failed.” Burns, 876 P.2d at 418.
The record shows that Plaintiff proffered no admissible evidence to the district
court which could support allegations of any defect recognized by Utah law as
giving rise to product liability in Defendant’s product. Riggs v. Asbestos Corp.
Ltd., 304 P.3d 61, 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (“Utah law recognizes three types of
product defects: design defects, manufacturing flaws, and inadequate warnings
regarding use.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wankier v. Crown
Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 867 (10th Cir. 2003) (discussing factors germane to
determining the existence of the three types of defect which can support a
products liability claim under Utah law). Furthermore, Plaintiff put forth no
evidence that could show any of the defects he alleged in his complaint existed at
the time the product was sold. In the absence of evidence establishing any defect,
Plaintiff’s case relies entirely on the fact that Defendant’s product failed, which,
as mentioned above, “is not enough” to support a strict products liability claim.
Burns, 876 P.2d at 418. Since Plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence
to support necessary elements of strict product liability, his strict product liability
claim cannot survive summary judgment.
-3-
This failure to submit any admissible evidence of a defect in Defendant’s
product necessarily causes Plaintiff’s negligence claim to fail, since a negligence
claim stemming from product liability, such as Plaintiff’s, still requires at least
some evidence of defect. Bishop v. GenTec Inc., 48 P.3d 218, 225-26 (Utah
2002).
Finally, there is no evidence in the record that Defendant created or
breached any warranties under the theories Plaintiff asserts in his three remaining
claims. See Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-313 (stating elements of express
warranties); § 70A-2-314 (stating elements of warranties of merchantability); §
70A-2-315 (stating elements of implied warranties of fitness).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision
granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-