Adela Ramirez v. Itw Food Equipment Group
686 F. App'x 435
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Adela Ramirez was injured when her hand was pulled into the rotating blade of a commercial meat grinder manufactured by ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC. Her employer Vallarta Food Enterprises is a co-appellant.
- Appellants alleged the grinder was defective because it lacked (1) an automatic shutoff that would cut power if the lid opened and (2) a lid lock preventing opening while blades spun.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ITW and excluded Appellants’ expert testimony; Appellants appealed.
- The court of appeals treated the automatic shutoff theory as a manufacturing-defect theory (not a design-defect theory) because the grinder was designed to cut power when the lid opened but allegedly failed to do so that day.
- The court evaluated the lid-lock claim as a design-defect claim and considered both the consumer-expectations and risk-benefit tests under California law.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held ITW failed to carry its summary-judgment burden under both tests and that the district court abused its discretion by excluding Appellants’ experts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automatic shutoff alleged is a design defect | Ramirez: grinder lacked a functional automatic shutoff as designed | ITW: grinder is designed to cut power with lid open; failure was an isolated malfunction | Court: automatic shutoff claim is manufacturing-defect theory, not a design-defect claim; district court correctly rejected it as a design theory |
| Whether lack of a lid lock can be proven under consumer-expectations test | Ramirez: ordinary user would expect lid not to allow hand into spinning blades; lifting lid while running is foreseeable misuse | ITW: theory is too technically complex; requires expert proof and is inappropriate for consumer-expectations test | Court: consumer-expectations test applies; Ramirez’s testimony that her hand was yanked in suffices to raise a triable issue |
| Whether ITW met its burden on risk-benefit test at summary judgment | Ramirez: absence of lid lock was a substantial factor; feasibility/cost are ITW’s burden to negate | ITW: must show alternative designs infeasible and that absent devices would have prevented injury | Court: ITW failed to show no feasible safer design or that benefits outweigh risks; summary judgment improper |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert testimony (Wolfe, Bennett) | Experts offered feasible alternative designs and causation-rebutting opinions | ITW: experts lacked specific experience with this grinder, peer review, testing, or industry acceptance | Court: exclusion was abuse of discretion—expert flaws go to weight, not admissibility; peer review or prior use not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (Ct. App.) (distinguishing manufacturing vs. design defect)
- Chavez v. Glock, Inc., 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 326 (Ct. App.) (consumer-expectations and risk-benefit are alternative tests for design defect)
- Akers v. Kelley Co., 219 Cal. Rptr. 513 (Ct. App.) (consumer-expectations test can apply to complex commercial machinery)
- Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151 (Ct. App.) (worker testimony sufficient under consumer-expectations test)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 882 P.2d 298 (Cal.) (manufacturer impliedly represents product will safely perform its intended functions)
- Campbell v. Gen. Motors Corp., 649 P.2d 224 (Cal.) (plaintiff need not prove absent safeguard would have prevented accident)
- Messick v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 747 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion in excluding expert testimony)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.) (peer review not always required for admissibility)
- Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.) (experts can propose improvements even if not previously used in like products)