Anthony Markel v. Douglas Technologies Group, 968 F.3d 888

During a flat-track ATV race in Ogilvie, Minnesota, Anthony Markel was thrown from his ATV when the right rear DTG-manufactured wheel came off, causing injury.
Markel sued DTG claiming product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, and post-sale failure to warn; the district court granted summary judgment for DTG and Markel appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Under Minnesota law, Markel’s product-liability, negligence, and implied-warranty claims merge into a single product-liability theory; his post-sale failure-to-warn claim was abandoned on appeal.
To survive summary judgment on a design-defect product-liability claim under Minnesota law, expert testimony is required when the product’s relevant workings are beyond lay understanding.
Markel’s proffered expert disclaimed an opinion that the subject wheel was defectively designed or unreasonably dangerous; Markel also offered no admissible evidence that any inadequate warning caused his injury (relying on hearsay).
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed because Markel lacked evidence on essential elements of the remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Product-liability design defect	DTG wheels were not built for racing; design/substance caused failure	No admissible expert showing a design defect or that wheels were unreasonably dangerous; lay jurors cannot assess wheel strength	Affirmed summary judgment—plaintiff’s expert disclaimed an opinion on defect; insufficient evidence to show defect caused injury
Failure-to-warn (pre-sale)	DTG failed to warn wheels were unsuitable for racing; Markel testified he would not have used them if warned	No admissible evidence that any inadequate warning caused the injury; plaintiff’s statement is hearsay and cannot defeat summary judgment	Affirmed summary judgment—no admissible proof of causation from inadequate warning
Claim consolidation/abandonment	Asserted five causes of action	Minnesota law merges product-liability, negligence, implied-warranty into single product-liability theory; post-sale claim abandoned on appeal	Court treated three claims as one under Bilotta and deemed post-sale failure-to-warn waived

Bilotta v. Kelley Co., 346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984) (Minnesota single product-liability theory/merger of claims)
Atwater Creamery Co. v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 366 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 1985) (expert testimony required when product’s workings are beyond lay understanding)
Wagner v. Hesston Corp., 450 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment where no admissible expert on design defect)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard—party opposing must show genuine issue of material fact)
Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. 1987) (elements of failure-to-warn claim)
Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 8 F.3d 1307 (8th Cir. 1993) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
Green Plains Otter Tail, LLC v. Pro-Envtl., Inc., 953 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2020) (applying Minnesota law on product-liability and warning claims)