Johnson v. Serv. Tool Co.

RUSSELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SERVICE TOOL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-12438

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 30, 2015

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Service Tool Co., LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff Russell Johnson filed the instant lawsuit seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a hunting accident when he used a cargo tie-down ratchet strap (the "Regal Strap"), distributed by Defendant Service Tool, as a replacement for a treestand support strap; the strap's stitching separated from the wedding; and Plaintiff fell 20 feet to the ground. Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint, alleging negligence and gross negligence. (Doc. No. 15, Ex. B). Defendant maintains that Plaintiff's claims cannot survive because Plaintiff fails to show that Defendant, as a non-manufacturer seller, breached any duty under Mich. Comp. Law § 600.2947(6). Defendant further raises three defenses: (1) Plaintiff's use of the cargo tie-down strap to support a treestand is an unforeseeable misuse; (2) Plaintiff's own comparative negligence in using the treestand precludes any recovery; and (3) the non-party Dunham's Sports is at fault for knowingly selling Plaintiff the treestand without a supporting strap or instruction manual. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) authorizes a court to grant summary judgment if "the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." There is no genuine issue of material fact if there is no factual dispute that could affect the legal outcome on the issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In determining whether to grant summary judgment, this Court "must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 517 F.3d 321, 332 (6th Cir. 2008). However, the nonmoving party "cannot rely merely on allegations but must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 2009).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On October 10, 2013, Plaintiff Russell Johnson purchased a floor model treestand from Dunham's Sports ("Dunham"). Since the treestand was an incomplete set missing components such as its supporting strap and instructional manual, Plaintiff signed a waiver stating he has "inspect[ed] and [was] satisfied with the condition of the product, packaging, materials and parts included with the tree stand." (Doc. 15, Ex. G). To replace the missing support strap, Mr. Johnson purchased a Regal 2-pc. 1?x15' Ratchet Tie-Down Set ("Regal Strap"), which is the product at issue.

The subject Regal Strap is a cargo tie-down strap imported and distributed by Defendant, Service Tools Co., LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company ("ServiceTool"). Service Tool imported the subject Regal Strap from an unknown manufacturer through intermediary distributors. Service Tool did not conduct independent testing or inspection of the straps and had no input into instructions/warnings on the product. Defendant's 30(b)(6) corporate representative testified that Service Tool has not fielded complaints or experienced issues with the subject Regal Straps before this lawsuit.

On October 11, 2013, Plaintiff went on a deer-hunting trip. He attempted to install the treestand with the subject Regal Strap at a point of a tree that was about 20 feet above the ground. As Plaintiff stepped on the treestand, the subject strap's stitching immediately separated from the webbing, and caused Plaintiff to fall 20 feet to the ground. Plaintiff suffered injury from the fall.

The subject Regal Strap's packaging did not explicitly specify its load limit or "breaking strength." Plaintiff's expert, Donald Pellow, conducted two testings on exemplar Regal Straps that revealed failure loads of 116 pounds and 334 pounds, respectively. (Doc. 15, Ex. J). Mr. Pellow subsequently tested five competitors' straps and revealed failure loads ranging from 1,256 pounds to 2,610 pounds. (Id.). Defendant's expert, Steve Rundell, performed testing on the exemplar straps that would have come with Plaintiff's treestand set and revealed failure loads ranging from 1,468 pounds to 2,189 pounds. (Doc. 15, Ex. K).

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant alleging negligence and gross negligence and requested the Court to award all damages allowed under Michigan law. (Doc. 1). The parties conducted discovery, and the discovery was closed on June 20, 2015. (Doc. 13; Doc. 14). On October 7, 2014, Defendant filed a notice of non-party at fault against Dunham. (Doc. 10). On July 20,2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgement requesting the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, and grant any other relief deemed equitable and just. (Doc. 15).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Defendant Service Tool's Status as Manufacturer or Non-Manufacturer

The Michigan Product Liability Act (MPLA) significantly limits the liability of a non-manufacturer seller as compared to a manufacturer. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2947(6). Case law within this District explains:

The legislative history of Section 2947 reveals the Legislature's intent to limit the liability of sellers only to those cases where their independent negligence is shown. The Senate Fiscal Agency's report on the product liability measures of Michigan's tort reform legislation explains:

By holding sellers responsible for their own wrongdoing, the bill would eliminate unnecessary and burdensome legal costs and insurance premiums. Since manufacturers ultimately indemnify sellers for the harm caused by the manufacturers' own products, claims should be brought directly against them.

[Senate Fiscal Agency Analysis of S.B. 344, p. 10]

Mills v. Curioni, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 876, 886 (E.D. Mich. 2002). As a preliminary issue, the parties dispute whether Defendant should be considered a "manufacturer" or a "non-manufacturer seller" for the instant action._

Defendant Service Tool Company, LLC, imported the ratchet strap at issue from an unknown manufacturer through intermediary distributors. (Doc. No. 15, Ex. C). Defendant argues that it is not a "manufacturer" of the ratchet strap at issue because (1) it did not design or manufacture the strap, and (2) it did not exercise any control or ownership over the manufacturer where it did not even know who the manufacturerwas. Defendant claims that all it did was to import the products and put its own branding information on the product packaging.

"[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law." Performance Contracting Inc. v. DynaSteel Corp., 750 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 417 (1996)). The Michigan Product Liability Act does not define "manufacturer." See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945. In the context of Michigan's Bulk Transfers Act, the Michigan Court of Appeals relied on Black's Law Dictionary to define a manufacturer as an "entity engaged in producing or assembling new products." Tubelite, Inc. v. Lakeshore Glass & Metals, Inc., No. 215600, 2000 WL 33529759, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2000). Absent controlling authority holding otherwise, courts in this District have found this common-sense definition applicable to Michigan Product Liability Act. Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp., 646 F. Supp. 2d 882, 888 (E.D. Mich. 2009).

In this case, the parties do no dispute that Service Tool did not engage in "producing or assembling new products," so Defendant is a non-manufacturer by definition. Id. at 888. Service Tool merely imported the subject Regal Straps from an unknown manufacturer through two intermediary distributors. This is essentially the same set of facts confronted by this District in Kraft v. Dr. Leonard's Healthcare Corp.. Id. In Kraft, the purchaser of a "no-slip ice carpet" brought a product liability action against the distributor PPR after he fell while using the product. Id. at 884. The plaintiff similarly tried to characterize the distributor PPR as a "manufacturer" where PPR purchased the product from an unknown Chinese manufacturer through an intermediary importing company. Id. at 885-86. The Kraft court rejected this characterizationbecause "[p]laintiff has not demonstrated more than a tangential connection between PPR and the Chinese manufacturer, nor any evidence that PPR exercises any control or ownership over the Chinese manufacturer." Id. at 888. The same analysis applies here. The connection between Service Tool and the manufacturer is just as tangential as the relationship between PPR and the Chinese manufacturer in Kraft. Plaintiff proffered no evidence to demonstrate that Service Tool exercised any control or ownership over the manufacturer. Therefore, Service Tool cannot be designated as the "manufacturer" of the subject Regal Straps.

1. Federal Statute

Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that Defendant did not design or manufacture the ratchet strap at issue. Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendant imports consumer products which renders it a "manufacturer" under Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(11). Plaintiff further argues that Defendant, as an importer, is "subject to all the same responsibilities as a domestic manufacturer" under the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), 16 C.F.R. § 1009.3(b). The Consumer Product Safety Act, enacted in 1972, established the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as an independent regulatory commission to develop consumer product safety standards and regulate the associated risks. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051, 20...