Geshke v. Crocs, Inc., 740 F.3d 74

In July 2010 a 9-year-old (N.K.) wearing Crocs sandals had her foot entrapped on an MBTA escalator; she was injured but freed before reaching the comb plate.
Plaintiff sued Crocs, Inc. in federal court under diversity jurisdiction asserting negligent design, failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty; on appeal she pursued failure-to-warn and implied-warranty (the latter depends on the former).
Crocs conceded the sandals were sold without escalator-specific warnings but pointed to a later general escalator-safety hangtag and to a subsequent Japan-market design change (Blaze) in response to regulator inquiries.
Plaintiff relied on: (a) roughly a dozen company incident reports of escalator entrapments (2006–2009); (b) an inadmissible Japanese METI‑NITE report comparing resin sandal entrapments; and (c) Crocs’ later hangtag and product change.
The district court granted summary judgment for Crocs, finding plaintiff had not produced admissible, significantly probative evidence showing Crocs posed a heightened escalator-entrapment risk.
The First Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find Crocs presented a special danger that would give rise to a duty to warn.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crocs posed a heightened risk of escalator entrapment such that Crocs had a duty to warn	Geshke: incident reports, METI‑NITE testing, and Crocs’ hangtag/product change show Crocs sandals are especially prone to entrapment	Crocs: anecdotal reports and post‑hoc responses do not prove a particularized risk; general escalator warnings do not admit special danger	Court: No — plaintiff failed to present admissible, significantly probative evidence to create a triable issue that Crocs posed a heightened risk
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the evidentiary record	Geshke: factual disputes (and dangerousness) are for the jury	Crocs: plaintiff lacks evidentiary quality support; inadmissible/extrinsic materials cannot defeat summary judgment	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — nonmoving party must produce admissentiary evidence and reasonable inferences, which plaintiff did not

Leavitt v. Brockton Hosp., Inc., 907 N.E.2d 213 (Mass. 2009) (elements of negligence under Massachusetts law)
Maldonado v. Thomson Nat'l Press Co., 449 N.E.2d 1229 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (duty to warn arises only when there is reason to suppose a warning is needed)
Carey v. Lynn Ladder & Scaffolding Co., 691 N.E.2d 223 (Mass. 1998) (warning not required unless product has a dangerous aspect that the warning mitigates)
Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 990 N.E.2d 997 (Mass. 2013) (discussion of when product dangerousness may be a jury question)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards for movant and nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (requiring nonmovant to produce more than conjecture; limits on credibility-based inferences)