Ibarra v. Future Motion, Inc.

1

JASON IBARRA, Plaintiff, v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant.

No. 22-cv-14067-MATTHEWMAN

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

May 2, 2023

AMENDED ^[1] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DE 52]

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Future Motion, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Future Motion”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [DE 52] and Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Filed in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 53]. Plaintiff, Jason Ibarra (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Response to Defendant's Motion [DE 70] and an “Opponent Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Filed in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment” [DE 79]. Defendant, in turn, has filed a Reply [DE 85] and a Reply Statement of Material Facts [DE 87]. Further, the Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 6, 2023, via Zoom Video teleconference. Thus, the matter is now ripe for review, and the Court has carefully considered the filings and attachments thereto, argument of counsel, and the entire docket in this case.

I. THE COMPLAINT [DE 1-2]

Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (“Complaint”) [DE 1-2 at 5-17] contains two counts against Defendant: Negligence (Count I) and Strict Liability (Count II). See Compl., DE 1-2 at 10-16. As to Count I, Plaintiff alleges fifteen different ways that Defendant breached the duty of care owed him to him. [DE 1-2 at 10-12]. With respect to Count II, Plaintiff lists fourteen different ways in which the Onewheel+ device-from which he fell and sustained injury-was unreasonably dangerous and defective. Id. at 13-15.

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

The following facts are drawn from the uncontested portions of the record together with Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SMF”) [DE 53], Plaintiff's “Opponent Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Filed in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Response SMF”) [DE 79], and Defendant's Reply Statement of Material Facts (“Reply SMF”) [DE 87].

a. The Incident

This lawsuit arises from an alleged February 12, 2021 incident in which Plaintiff contends he fell while riding his Onewheel+ electric skateboard in Martin County, Florida.^[2] [Def.'s SMF ¶ 1]. Defendant Future Motion, Inc. is the creator and manufacturer of the Onewheel+ at issue in the instant case. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 2].

As to the incident in particular, Plaintiff became interested in Onewheel products, including the Onewheel+ model, after watching Defendant's promotional videos, which conveyed to him a sense of freedom that comes with Onewheel products and a specific lifestyle. [Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 75]. Accordingly, Plaintiff purchased his Onewheel+ secondhand via Facebook Marketplace approximately one month prior to the incident. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 35]. From that point, the Onewheel+ was Plaintiff's “go-to” board, and he used it nearly every day until the date of his injury. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 36].

On that date, an individual came to Plaintiff's home to look at scuba gear Plaintiff had listed for sale. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 37]. While there-and while the two men were in Plaintiff's garage looking at the scuba equipment-the man asked Plaintiff about the Onewheel+. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 38]. Plaintiff offered to show the man the Onewheel+. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 39]. Therefore, Plaintiff unplugged the Onewheel+, put on a helmet, and intended to do a quick ride around his neighborhood to show what a Onewheel+ could do. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 39-40].

When exiting the garage, Plaintiff traveled approximately 20 feet from the back of the garage diagonally towards the front, accelerating “quickly” across the garage. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 4243]. However, Plaintiff either fell right at the edge of his garage or just before exiting.^[3] See Def.'s SMF ¶ 45; Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 45. Plaintiff claims that when he fell from the board, he landed approximately one to two feet in front of the board, which did not move after he fell off. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 46]. In other words, Plaintiff's body landed in the driveway, while the board remained in the garage. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 47].

The board did not feel unusual to Plaintiff in any way leading up to the moment he fell, and it engaged as expected when he got on. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 48]. Indeed, Plaintiff does not know why the board stopped on February 12, 2021. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 49]. Regardless, after he fell, Plaintiff got up and felt there was something wrong with his wrist. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 51]. Consequently, because Plaintiff felt he needed medical attention, he asked the man picking up the scuba equipment to drive him to the hospital, to which the man agreed. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 52]. Plaintiff claims not to know the name of the man, does not have his phone number or email address, and does not maintain any communication with him. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 41].

Plaintiff later sued Future Motion in November 2021, alleging causes of action for negligence and strict liability. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 56]. In answers to Future Motion's first set of discovery, Plaintiff never identified any defectively manufactured component of his Onewheel+. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 57]. He claimed only that the Onewheel+ was “unreasonably dangerous and defective ....” [Def.'s SMF ¶ 58].

b. General Background and Warnings

The Onewheel+ is generally comprised of a motor, battery, footpads, and electronic components that allow it to self-balance, and the Onewheel+'s microcontroller keeps track of the state of sensors, battery, and motor. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 68]. In order to operate the Onewheel+, a rider stands sideways on the board, as one would stand on a traditional skateboard. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 5]. To move the board forward, a rider leans forward. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 6]. To slow down or stop, a rider leans back. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 7]. In this regard, the board is fully rider activated and the rider controls how fast or slow they are going. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 8]. Like most recreational activities, a learning curve is involved in operating the Onewheel+, and it takes time to become proficient or to transition to a higher skill level. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 9].

The user (or owner's) manual for the Onewheel+ describes situations where loss of control is possible, such as low-battery, full-battery while riding downhill, exceeding speed limitations, or riding down too steep of a hill, with nose-down ground contact as the consequence. [Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 69]. The owner's manual for the Onewheel+ (which is available online) also contains many warnings about the Onewheel+ board and how to use it, and warnings about the board's “pushback” feature. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 26-27]. This includes the following warnings: (1) that, if at any time a rider attempts to go too fast, descends a very steep hill, or rides with a low battery, the Onewheel+ will “push back”; (2) that, in a situation where the board “pushes back,” the nose of the board will lift to slow the rider down, after which the only way of avoiding so-called “pushback” is for the rider to decrease his or her speed by leaning back; and (3) that ignoring safety warnings-including warnings concerning pushback-may result in loss of control, serious injury, or death. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 26].

Plaintiff testified he was familiar with the “risk of death or serious injury” warning in the Onewheel+ owner's manual and that he had read it in multiple manuals prior to the February 12, 2021 incident. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 28]. In fact, Plaintiff looked at the owner's manuals for all the Onewheel boards he owned, including the Onewheel Pint and the Onewheel+ XR. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 25]. Plaintiff understood that the Onewheel+ has limits, that pushback occurs when approaching those limits, and that ignoring related safety warnings could result in serious injury or death. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 30]. Further, Plaintiff understood that if he did not follow the instructions and warnings provided by Future Motion, he could get hurt. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 31].

Beyond looking at the owner's manual for the Onewheel+, Plaintiff also viewed instructional videos concerning operation of the Onewheel+ in the Onewheel mobile app. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 20]. Plaintiff watched all the safety and warning videos in the Onewheel app multiple times.

[Def.'s SMF ¶ 22]. Among these videos, Plaintiff specifically recalled viewing the video on the “pushback” feature. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 21]. As a result, Plaintiff agreed that Future Motion had provided him with safety and operation information via the owner's manual and that Future Motion had provided him with access to plenty of information through the Onewheel app. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 23-24].

Defendant has chosen to use pushback as the only feedback/warning provided directly from the Onewheel+ device itself to the user while in operation. [Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 71]. Nonetheless, prior to February 12, 2021, Plaintiff was comfortable riding the Onewheel+, used the Onewheel+ nearly every day, and did not have any questions about how to operate it. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 32, 83]. Plaintiff was also comfortable with (and understood) how the Onewheel+ accelerated, decelerated, and stopped. [Def.'s SMF ¶¶ 33, 84]. Indeed, Plaintiff specifically understood that if a rider puts too much weight forward, he could “put down” the nose of the board which could cause abrupt stops due to the friction of the board against the ground. [Def.'s SMF ¶ 34; Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 74; Reply SMF ¶ 74].

Plaintiff also understood the Onewheel+ had limits in terms of speed and battery capacity (which he testified he respected), and that nosedives happen when a rider pushes through pushback. [Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶¶ 87, 89-90]. However Plaintiff was not going downhill with a full battery, ascending a steep hill, or riding with a low battery when he fell. [Pl.'s Resp. SMF ¶ 76; Reply SMF ¶ 76]. And, other...