Gardner v. Brillion Iron Works, Inc., 0:11-cv-03528

Gardner and Cori Gardner sue Brillion Iron Works for injuries from repairing a Brillion CD 113 soil builder.
Soil builder contained ballast material in sealed tubes that Brillion later altered after injuries from drilling into tubes.
Gardner attempted to repair at Schack’s farm; he drilled into a sealed tube, causing a flash and burns.
Plaintiffs allege defective design, failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligence, post-sale warning duty, and loss of consortium.
Brillion moves for summary judgment on all claims.
The court denies some claims and grants others, with trial to resolve remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defective design—unreasonably dangerous condition	Gardner argues soil builder was defective; drilling foreseeably endangers repairs	Brillion contends use was not within intended design.	Genuine issues for trial exist on defectiveness and intended/foreseeable use.
Primary assumption of the risk	Gardner did not appreciate the drilling risk; warning lacking	Gardner assumed risk by drilling despite warnings	Not as a matter of law; jury must resolve knowledge and appreciation of risk.
Failure to warn	Warning could have altered behavior; Brillion knew dangers	Dangers alleged were not foreseen or warnings futile	Question for jury on whether duty to warn was breached and causal link.
Post-sale duty to warn	Special circumstances justify continuing duty to warn	No duty post-sale given limited incidents	Hodder factors support a continuing duty; jury to resolve breach and causation.
Breach of warranty and negligence	Implied warranty/negligence theories merge with strict liability	Preemption/merger counsel dismissal of warranty/negligence	Dismissed; claims limited to product-liability theories.

Bilotta v. Kelley Co., 346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984) (design defect standard; foreseeable use factors)
Drager ex rel. Gutzman v. Aluminum Indus. Corp., 495 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (defect and proximate cause in design cases)
Reimer v. City of Crookston, 326 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2003) (knowledge/appreciation of risk; primary-assumption framework in complex repairs)
Andren v. White-Rodgers Co., 465 N.W.2d 102 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (primary assumption of risk analysis in Minnesota)
Armstrong v. Mailand, 284 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. 1979) (limits and application of primary assumption of risk)
Daly v. McFarland, 812 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 2012) (primary assumption of risk in strict-liability context)
Hodder v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 426 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 1988) (post-sale duty to warn factors; Hodder framework)
Kapps v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Minn. 2011) (merger of negligence and strict liability theories)