Birch v. Polaris Industries, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22583
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Decedent Virl Birch bought a 2011 Polaris RZR 800; after a crash the vehicle’s rollover protection structure (ROPS) buckled and pinned him, causing death.
- A non-Polaris technician (Skylar Damron), certified by Polaris, replaced the original 2011 ROPS with a new-in-box 2008-model ROPS and modified the 2011 frame to fit the 2008 ROPS.
- Plaintiffs sued Polaris (strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty). Utah law requires any product defect causing injury to have existed at time of sale.
- After discovery deadlines passed, plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to (a) add the 2008 ROPS as a product at issue and (b) add negligent-training claims against Polaris; they also sought additional discovery under Rule 56(d).
- The magistrate judge denied the motions as untimely and the district court affirmed; the district court then granted summary judgment to Polaris because the unamended complaint alleged only a 2011 RZR and there was no evidence of a defect in the 2011 vehicle at time of sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for district court’s review of magistrate judge order | District court should have reviewed de novo because the magistrate’s rulings had dispositive effect | Rule 72(a) applies and district court appropriately used clearly erroneous/contrary-to-law standard; plaintiffs waived any de novo claim | Court held de novo review of choice-of-standard question is appropriate but plaintiffs waived de novo review by agreeing to the clearly erroneous standard in district court; affirm denial |
| Denial of motion to amend (adding 2008 ROPS as product and negligent-training claim) | Delay was justified by late discovery of 2008 ROPS and need for further investigation | Motion was untimely under Rule 16(b); plaintiffs had knowledge of facts earlier and offered no adequate excuse for four-month post-disassembly delay | Denial affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show good cause under Rule 16 and abused no discretion by district court |
| Denial of Rule 56(d) motion for additional discovery | Plaintiffs needed more discovery about ROPS design, Polaris’ training and records; Polaris withheld design documents | Plaintiffs’ declarations lacked specificity required by Rule 56(d) (probable facts, steps taken, how more time would help) | Denial affirmed: affidavits were insufficiently specific and district court did not abuse discretion |
| Summary judgment on product-defect-at-sale element | Plaintiffs argued amendment should have been allowed to pursue claims tied to the 2008 ROPS or training liability | Polaris argued unamended complaint defined only a 2011 RZR; replacement 2008 ROPS was installed post-sale by a non-party, so no defect existed at sale | Summary judgment affirmed: under Utah law plaintiffs could not prove a defect existed in the product as sold (2011 RZR), so claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Cannondale Bicycle Co., 876 P.2d 415 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (strict products-liability requires defect existed at time of sale)
- Slisze v. Stanley-Bostitch, 979 P.2d 317 (Utah 1999) (products-negligence claims require defect at time of sale)
- Utah Local Gov’t Tr. v. Wheeler Mach. Co., 199 P.3d 949 (Utah 2008) (breach-of-warranty claims governed by defect-at-sale rule)
- Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard for evaluating post-deadline motions to amend under Rules 16 and 15)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact)
- Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Health Care Mgmt. Partners, Ltd., 616 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 56(d) affidavit specificity requirements)
- Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 516 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2008) (appellate review of district court’s summary-judgment materials and limits on review)