Mauer v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

MARLENE MAUER, Plaintiff, v. ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC., Defendant.

No. C18-2009-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

March 4, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 24) for summary judgment filed by defendant ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. (ICON). Plaintiff Marlene Mauer has filed a resistance (Doc. No. 25) and ICON has filed a reply (Doc. No. 26). I find that oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mauer commenced this action on January 5, 2018, by filing a petition (Doc. No. 3) in the Iowa District Court for Bremer County against ICON, Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) and Sears Home Services, LLC (Sears Home).¹ Defendants timely removed the case to this court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Mauer's petition includes three counts against ICON: (1) products liability based on a failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect and/or insufficient inspection; and (2) negligence based on a failure to warn, design defect, manufacturingdefect and/or insufficient inspection and (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Mauer served her initial disclosures on April 19, 2018. Doc. No. 24-1 at 3. She identified Dennis Peters of Cedar Valley Fitness Repair as a potential witness in this case. Id. Mauer generally explained that Peters inspected the treadmill on March 1, 2016, and is of the opinion that the treadmill's speed automatically increased during the incident at issue (as described further below) because of either a console or lower control board issue. Id. However, Mauer did not follow up providing any disclosures of expert witness opinions by her June 28, 2019, deadline to designate expert witnesses and provide expert witness disclosures. Id.

After ICON served defense expert witness disclosures on Mauer, Mauer's counsel advised ICON's counsel that Peters had passed away, and that Mauer's counsel was seeking a replacement expert. Id. Discovery in this case closed on November 18, 2019. Doc. No. 20. ICON filed its motion for summary judgment on January 2, 2020, seeking judgment in its favor on all counts. Mauer has not, at least up to the date of ICON's motion for summary judgment, identified any other expert witness or disclosed the opinions of any such witness. Doc. No. 24-1 at 6. A jury trial is scheduled to begin June 22, 2020.

III. RELEVANT FACTS

The following facts are undisputed² for purposes of ICON's motion except where otherwise noted:

Mauer purchased a Proform Crosswalk Fit 415 Treadmill (the treadmill) from Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) on May 28, 2015. Doc. No. 25-1 at 1. The treadmill was designed and sold to Sears by ICON. Id. Mauer alleges that on one occasion between May 28, 2015, and June 15, 2015, the treadmill accelerated automatically, and without warning, during use, causing her to fall.³ Id. ICON disputes whether the treadmill automatically accelerated and disputes whether it caused Mauer to fall. Doc. No. 26 at 1.

On June 16, 2015, a Sears technician tested the treadmill and adjusted the motor speed. Doc. No. 25-1 at 1. It is disputed whether the Sears technician did any other work on the treadmill on that date. Mauer alleges that no parts were replaced or repaired. Id. at 2. ICON notes there is no testimony from any witness with personal knowledge about what the Sears technician did to the treadmill on June 16, but agrees there is a document that suggests no parts were replaced or repaired. Doc. No. 26 at 1-2.

Mauer alleges that on January 24, 2016, the treadmill again accelerated automatically and without warning after she had been walking on it for approximately six minutes. Doc. No. 25-1 at 2. Mauer alleges that as a result, she fell off the treadmill and broke her shoulder, bruised her chin and hurt her left knee. Id. ICON disputes whether the treadmill automatically and without warning accelerated and disputes whether it caused Mauer to fall. Doc. No. 26 at 1. Mauer alleges that when using the treadmill on January 24, she pressed only the "start" button and otherwise kept her hands on the treadmill's hand bar while she walked. Doc. No. 25-1 at 2. ICON disputes whether Mauer pressed only the "start" button. Doc. No. 26 at 2. Mauer also claims she never changed programs or features while using the treadmill. Doc. No. 25-1 at 2. ICON disputes whether Mauer ever changed programs or features on the treadmill. Doc. No. 26 at 2. Mauer's husband put blue painter's tape over the program controls on thetreadmill to make sure they were never used but Mauer is not sure about when he placed the blue tape on the treadmill. Doc. No. 25-1 at 2.

When Mauer was asked during her deposition whether she knew if there were programs built into the treadmill that would increase the treadmill's speed on its own depending upon the program, Mauer replied she did not. Doc. No. 24-1 at 5. When asked if it was possible that the treadmill could have accelerated because a workout program on the treadmill was activated such that the treadmill's speed would change on its own, Mauer stated "I wouldn't know because I don't know anything about all them programs and stuff." Id.

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS

Any party may move for summary judgment regarding all or any part of the claims asserted in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, "the substantive law will identify which facts are material." Id. Facts that are "critical" under the substantive law are material, while facts that are "irrelevant or unnecessary" are not. Id.

An issue of material fact is genuine if it has a real basis in the record, Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)), or when "'a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party' on the question." Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Evidence that only provides "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," Matsushita, 475U.S. at 586, or evidence that is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, does not make an issue of material fact genuine.

As such, a genuine issue of material fact requires "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute" so as to "require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. The party moving for entry of summary judgment bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue." Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Mosley v. City of Northwoods, 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005). The nonmovant must show an alleged issue of fact is genuine and material as it relates to the substantive law. If a party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim or defense with respect to which that party has the burden of proof, then the opposing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

In determining if a genuine issue of material fact is present, I must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587-88. Further, I must give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Id. However, "because we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we do not weigh the evidence or attempt to determine the credibility of the witnesses." Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 2004). Instead, "the court's function is to determine whether a dispute about a material fact is genuine." Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 90 F.3d 1372, 1377 (8th Cir. 1996).

V. ANALYSIS

While Mauer's state court petition names ICON in only three counts, those counts assert nine different claims under Iowa law: (1) product liability based on a failure to warn, (2) negligence based on a failure to warn, (3) product liability based on a design defect, (4) negligence based on a design defect, (5) product liability based on a manufacturing defect, (6) negligence based on a manufacturing defect, (7) product liability based on insufficient inspection, (8) negligence based on insufficient inspection and (9) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Doc. No. 3. I will address each of Mauer's claims, although for reasons I will explain below, I will address her product liability and negligence claims on each defect issue together.

A. Failure to Warn - Product Liability and Negligence

ICON argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Mauer's failure to warn claim under a product liability theory because she has not identified any deficiency in the instructions or warnings provided with the treadmill and has not provided alternative instructions that would have prevented her January 24, 2016, accident. Doc. No. 24-2 at 6. ICON also argues that Iowa law requires Mauer to have expert opinion to support her failure to warn claim. Id. at 8. ICON argues that even assuming Mauer...