Athena Bachtel v. TASER International, Inc.
747 F.3d 965
8th Cir.2014Background
- Harlan died after a Moberly police TASER X26 deployment during a late-night traffic stop; his mother sued TASER under Missouri tort/Mc 1983 claims for warnings and design defects.
- District court excluded Dr. Zipes and Myerburg from testimony, then granted TASER summary judgment on all claims.
- Evidence showed the X26 warnings and training materials evolved from 2004 to 2007; training at the scene diverged from manufacturer recommendations (back targeting, limited live cycles, chest shots).
- Officer Baird fired chest-directed, extended TASER cycles at close range; three other officers were present, one handcuffed, yet deployment occurred despite training.
- Bachtel asserted strict liability for failure to warn and design defect; TASER contended warnings were adequate or that the device was not unreasonably dangerous as designed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure-to-warn claim survives given causation. | Bachtel argues additional warnings would have changed officer behavior. | TASER contends warnings could not have altered actions; evidence supports no read or heed of warnings. | Summary judgment affirmed; no triable causation from warnings |
| Whether Missouri strict liability design defect requires specific design choices shown. | X26 design choices render device unreasonably dangerous. | Evidence shows only a link to injury, not specific dangerous design choices. | Design defect claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether the district court properly excluded Dr. Zipes's warnings-design testimony and Myerburg's report. | Zipes qualified to opine on warnings and heart effects relevant to warnings. | Zipes lacks expertise in warnings for law-enforcement devices; Myerburg untimely. | Exclusion affirmed; expertise not sufficiently align |
| Whether a heeding presumption applies to read/heed warnings in police use-of-force context. | A presumption would exist if no warning was given and danger known; up for jury determination. | Presumption rebuttable; evidence shows Baird did not heed warnings and likely would not have read updated warnings anyway. | Presumption unavailable; causation rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. 2011) (elements for strict liability failure to warn)
- Tenbarge v. Ames Taping Tool Sys., Inc., 190 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 1999) (causation and warnings in strict liability)
- Menz v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 507 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2007) (expert testimony necessity and abuse of discretion standards)
- Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 260 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2001) (heeding presumption and rebuttal evidence)
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (evidence of design-related risk; design defect causation considerations)
- Nesselrode v. Exec. Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1986) (design defect standard under Missouri law)