Glenn v. B & R Plastics, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1044

Background

Plaintiffs Shirley and William Glenn sued B & R Plastics after Mrs. Glenn (age 76, ~100 lbs.) fell from a 9-inch E-Z Foldz plastic folding stepstool while reaching for a bowl in an upper kitchen cabinet on Dec. 3, 2014. The stool was purchased in 2005 and used at home without prior incident.
At the time of the accident two of four guide/locking tabs were broken and all four adhesive vinyl feet were missing; plaintiffs say they were unaware of these conditions prior to the fall.
Plaintiffs alleged design-defect, failure-to-warn, negligent testing/inspection, breach of express and implied warranty, willful/reckless conduct, and loss of consortium. They sought leave to amend to add punitive damages.
Plaintiffs’ liability expert (Dr. Stephens, mechanical engineer) performed some documented friction testing and videotaped demonstrations but also performed undocumented informal tests; defendant moved to exclude his testimony under Daubert.
Defendant’s materials expert (Dr. Moll) tested exemplar stools and opined the damaged stool was in a damaged state and that the missing feet/tabs would not cause collapse under plaintiff’s weight; defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The court excluded Dr. Stephens’ testimony under Daubert and then granted summary judgment for B & R on all claims, finding insufficient admissible evidence that any defect caused Mrs. Glenn’s injury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Stephens' expert testimony (Daubert/Rule 702)	Stephens is qualified; relied on experience, inspected stool, ran coefficient-of-friction and videotaped tests; undocumented tests were not the basis of his opinions.	Stephens’ undocumented "extreme standing" tests and videotaped demonstrations lack methodology, data, testing, error rates; opinions speculative and misleading.	Excluded Stephens in full: undocumented tests and unmeasured demonstrations unreliably apply principles to this case and are prejudicial under Rule 403.
Scope of summary judgment (do motions address all claims)	Plaintiffs argued some claims (failure to warn, test/inspect) remain aside from design/warranty theories.	Defendant moved for judgment on every claim and argued defects in plaintiffs’ proof apply across theories.	Court held defendant’s motion addressed all products-liability and warranty claims; plaintiffs had effectively abandoned some theories.
Breach of warranty/privity	Plaintiffs: warranty claims survive under Idaho Products Liability Reform Act (IPLRA) even absent contractual privity.	Defendant: lack of privity bars warranty claims.	Court followed Oats and held lack of privity does not bar tort/warranty claims under IPLRA; privity defense denied.
Prima facie products-liability causation (abnormal use and reasonable secondary causes)	Plaintiffs: evidence (stool condition, complaints, manufacturing changes) supports defect and causation; disputes of medical causes create fact issues.	Defendant: missing feet/tabs indicate abnormal use or post-manufacture damage; medical history/medications or age are reasonable alternative causes.	Court: plaintiffs raised factual dispute on abnormal use and secondary causes but failed to present admissible evidence that an identified defect caused the fall. Defendant not entitled to SJ on those two elements alone.
Sufficiency of evidence to prove defect caused injury (causation)	Plaintiffs: physical stool condition, company complaints, and modifications support defect and causation; expert would explain mechanism.	Defendant: causation unsupported—plaintiff’s testimony shows no awareness of failure, other-incident evidence is hearsay, design changes barred by statute, and excluded expert eliminates mechanism proof.	Held for defendant: after excluding expert and disallowing inadmissible other-incident and modification evidence, plaintiffs offered no admissible proof that a defect caused Mrs. Glenn’s fall; summary judgment granted.

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district courts must ensure expert testimony is reliable and relevant under Rule 702)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non-scientific expert testimony)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant may show absence of evidentiary support to obtain summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court must make relevance and reliability findings before admitting expert testimony)
Murray v. S. Route Mar. SA, 870 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2017) (Daubert reoriented admissibility inquiry; courts must be active gatekeepers)
Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 858 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2017) (expert testimony inadmissible if not grounded in methods of science)
Farmer v. Int’l Harvester Co., 97 Idaho 742 (Idaho 1976) (prima facie products-liability case can be proved by proof of malfunction plus absence of abnormal use and reasonable secondary causes)
Mortensen v. Chevron Chem. Co., 107 Idaho 836 (Idaho 1984) (Farmer rule applies across defect categories)
Oats v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA, 126 Idaho 162 (Idaho 1994) (non-privity breach-of-warranty claims for personal injury governed by IPLRA, not UCC)
Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co., 118 Idaho 224 (Idaho 1990) (evidence of reasonable secondary causes defeats prima facie case)