Products liability – Drill

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff purchaser of a cordless drill has alleged that the drill’s battery charger caused a fire, the defendant manufacturer must be awarded summary judgment because the plaintiff (1) has not sufficient identified the product he purchased, (2) has proffered no expert evidence and (3) has insufficient evidence of causation.

“… [Plaintiff Craig] Williams has identified Mr. Marchica as his expert in this arena. … However, Mr. Marchica has not yet produced an expert report consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because, according to Williams, his report will be largely based on the deposition testimony of [defendant] TTI’s Chip Winchester and as of the date of Williams’s opposition, this deposition had not taken place, … as Williams sought certain evidence regarding a drill other than the P200 model that he contends is at issue in this case. …

“Williams’s assertion that Mr. Marchica’s opinion will crystallize upon the deposition of Chip Winchester does not save the day. The Court understands Williams’s assertions to be that both Mr. Marchica and Mr. Winchester will testify about the HP1802M drill and its relation to the P200. … It cannot be the case that Williams’s bald assertion that an unknown opinion based on a deposition that has not yet occurred, that will focus on the recall of another product is sufficient to defeat summary judgment. … Although Williams is correct that the Court is obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the Court cannot say that it is reasonable to assume that the requisite expert opinion relative to a design defect exists under the facts and circumstances before the Court. …

“… Although Sgt. [Michael J.] Peters [of the Massachusetts State Police Fire and Explosion Section] noted that the fire appeared to have originated in the area of the workbench, which is where the battery and charger were located, … and that the battery showed signs of failure, … Sgt. Peters concluded that ‘further forensic examination of the battery, charger and associated wiring must occur to determine if they have failed, causing the fire. At this time, my cause is undetermined.’ … The most that the Court can glean from this report is that Sgt. Peters could testify that the battery possibly caused the fire. However, as Defendants note, this testimony would not necessarily be based upon his report, where at the time of the accident, Sgt. Peters concluded that the cause of the fire was ‘undetermined.’ Moreover, there is nothing in his report or in any other portion of the record identified by Williams suggesting that Sgt. Peters will testify that any alleged battery’s failure was more likely than not caused by a design defect in a P200 drill. Without such testimony, Williams cannot establish causation through this witness. …”

Williams v. Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-322-14) (11 pages) (Casper, J.) (USDC) (Civil Action No. 12-11502-DJC) (June 23, 2014).

Click here for the full-text opinion.