Fontenot Ex Rel. Estate of Turner v. Taser International, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23510
4th Cir.2013Background
- Fontenot, administrator of Turner’s estate, sued TASER International in North Carolina state court for negligence alleging TI failed to warn about cardiac risks when X26 taser darts hit near the chest.
- The CMPD trained officers using TI-provided materials that the X26 taser had no effect on heart rhythms and should be aimed at the chest, leading to Turner being tased in the chest and collapsing with ventricular fibrillation.
- Turner, 17, died after prolonged taser exposure; the district court remitted a $10 million award to about $5.5 million after present-value adjustments and deductions.
- TI challenged the award and argued contributory negligence should bar Fontenot’s claim; the district court barred TI’s contributory-negligence defense, and the case went to trial where Fontenot prevailed on liability.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed liability, vacated the remitted damages amount, and remanded for a new damages trial; it also held TI’s warnings were inadequate enough to support proximate-cause liability.
- Dissent argued TI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on contributory-negligence grounds because Turner’s conduct contributed to his injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NC contributory negligence bars Fontenot's claim | Fontenot argues Turner’s lack of use of the product is irrelevant under 99B-4(3). | TI contends Turner’s conduct and failure to comply should negate Fontenot’s recovery. | Contributory negligence defense barred |
| Whether TI’s warning about cardiac risk would have changed Dawson’s use | Adequate warning could have caused different taser targeting; thus proximate cause shown. | No way to prove different use if warned; causation too speculative. | Evidence supported proximate-cause finding; no JNOV required |
| Whether Officer Dawson’s use constituted product misuse | Warnings about prolonged exposure would be inadequate; misuse not shown as a matter of law. | Use for 37 seconds continuous exceeds warnings and constitutes misuse. | No judgment as a matter of law for product misuse |
| Whether the damages award was excessive and not supported by the evidence | Damages should reflect Fontenot and Turner’s services and companionship value; substantial award justified. | Damages are not proven with reasonable certainty; remittitur appropriate. | Damages remittitur order challenged; new damages trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995) (contributory negligence focus on use of product under 99B-4(3))
- Nicholson v. American Safety Util. Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 488 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1997) (contributory negligence codified; use of product not sole focus)
- Nicholson II, 488 S.E.2d 241 (N.C. 1997) (all circumstances during use must be considered; products context)
- Hinton v. City of Raleigh, 46 N.C.App. 305, 264 S.E.2d 777 (N.C. App. 1980) (non-product context showing contributory negligence concepts applied to safety)
- Braswell v. N.C. A & T State Univ., 5 N.C.App. 1, 168 S.E.2d 24 (N.C. App. 1969) (assumption of risk / contributory negligence in a public-safety context)
- Benton v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 136 N.C.App. 42, 524 S.E.2d 53 (N.C. App. 1999) (contributory negligence in confrontational injuries context)
- Time Warner Entm’t-Advance/Newhouse P’ship v. Carteret-Craven Elec. Membership Corp., 506 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2007) (state-law questions on NC law in federal diversity context)