Evelyn Rosa v. Taser International, Inc.
684 F.3d 941
9th Cir.2012Background
- August 2004: TASER M26 used to subdue Michael Rosa during a police arrest in California.
- Rosas allege TASER failed to warn adequately that repeated exposure could cause fatal metabolic acidosis.
- District court granted TASER summary judgment, finding risk not knowable in December 2003 and evidence insufficient.
- Rosas appealed, arguing broader duty to warn/testing and inclusion of isolated reports as knowledge.
- Court held the risk of metabolic acidosis was not knowable in 2003 based on cited articles and warnings.
- Court affirmed summary judgment, not reaching alternative negligence or punitive-damages theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the risk of fatal metabolic acidosis knowable in 2003? | Rosas contend knowledge existed from scientific literature. | TASER argues knowledge was not established by 2003. | No; risk not knowable in 2003. |
| Does negligence expand the duty to warn beyond strict liability? | Negligence may impose broader warning duties. | Duties largely overlap; no broader duty shown here. | Negligence does not create a triable issue given lack of knowable risk. |
| Can 2009 TASER warning be used to create triable fact about 2003 knowability? | The 2009 warning shows awareness of acidosis risk. | Evidence of 2009 warning is not admissible to prove 2003 knowledge. | Not admissible to establish 2003 knowability; does not defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (manufacturer duty to warn known/knowable risks; expert knowledge standard)
- Finn v. G.D. Searle & Co., 677 P.2d 1147 (Cal. 1984) (knowledge of speculative risks not required to warn)
- Brown v. Superior Court, 751 P.2d 470 (Cal. 1988) (strict liability vs. general warning duties; dilution of warnings)
- Carlin v. Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347 (Cal. 1996) (manufacturer held to expert knowledge; cannot ignore advances)
- Valentine v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 264 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (negligence warning duties may apply in narrow circumstances)