649 F.Supp.3d 129
D. Maryland2023Background
- Plaintiff Gaynell Colburn is a disabled driver who bought a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica from Mobility Works that was outfitted with a BraunAbility power ramp and hand controls.
- The written sales proposal allocated $20,130 for handicap conversion equipment and included an "Adaptive Equipment Summary" describing the BraunAbility conversion; plaintiff also received a BraunAbility welcome letter and was told of a three‑year manufacturer warranty.
- After purchase the ramp and related adaptive equipment repeatedly malfunctioned; on at least two occasions the ramp retracted while Colburn was exiting, pitching her out of her wheelchair and causing serious injuries requiring hospitalization.
- Mobility Works inspected and replaced a fuse and noted Braun was apparently aware of ramp issues in wet/cold weather; plaintiff alleges Braun designed, manufactured, and installed the defective components.
- Procedural posture: Braun moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court denied the motion in part, permitting express warranty, implied merchantability, negligence, and Magnuson‑Moss Act claims to proceed, but dismissed the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Express warranty | Sales proposal and adaptive equipment summary (and Braun welcome letter) created an express warranty that vehicle was handicapped‑accessible | Braun says it did not make the seller's representations and no agency relationship is pleaded | Denied dismissal — complaint plausibly alleges an express warranty based on the sales description and basis of the bargain |
| Implied warranty of merchantability | Braun manufactures wheelchair conversion equipment; ramp malfunctions show lack of merchantable quality | Braun contends plaintiff lacks specificity about the defective parts and manufacturing | Denied dismissal — allegations that Braun designed/manufactured the adaptive equipment and malfunctioned are sufficient at pleading stage |
| Implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose | Plaintiff relied on seller to supply a vehicle suitable for handicap access | Braun argues the vehicle was used for its ordinary intended purpose, not a "particular" purpose | Dismissed — plaintiff purchased the vehicle for its ordinary intended use, so this implied warranty does not apply |
| Negligence (design defect) | Braun owed a duty to design safe adaptive equipment; repeated malfunctions caused injury | Braun says defects are not specifically identified (e.g., vague reference to "control module") | Denied dismissal — factual allegations of recurring ramp failures and resulting injuries suffice to state a negligence (design defect) claim |
| Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) | MMWA claim follows from the viable state warranty claims | Braun argues dismissal of state claims would defeat MMWA claim | Denied dismissal — because express and implied merchantability warranty claims survive, the MMWA claim survives as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Wikimedia Found. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2017) (pleading facts accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
- SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2015) (pleading standard cited)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain more than legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Painter’s Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (limitations on conclusory allegations)
- Morris v. Biomet, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D. Md. 2020) (elements of breach of express and implied warranties under Maryland law)
- Parker v. Allentown, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 2d 773 (D. Md. 2012) (manufacturer duty in products‑liability negligence)
- Doll v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011) (MMWA implements state warranty law)