903 F. Supp. 2d 669
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- Hathaway, a welder/plasma torch operator for Quik Cut, was burned when sparks from a Pro Cut 80 plasma cutter ignited his 100% cotton shirt rented from Cintas.
- Quik Cut has a uniform rental agreement with Cintas providing clothing, laundering, and repair services.
- The shirt worn by Hathaway was provided by Cintas and not flame retardant, per rental agreement language.
- Plaintiffs sue Cintas for negligence (Count I), breach of warranty (Count II), and products liability (Count III).
- Court grants summary judgment for Cintas on Counts II and III, but not on Count I, after determining the IPLA’s reach and the product-versus-service characterization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count II is duplicative of IPLA claims and should be dismissed | Hathaway argues breach claims are viable separate theories | Cintas contends IPLA subsumes breach claims | Count II subsumed by IPLA; granted summary judgment on Count II. |
| Whether the IPLA governs the products liability claims (Count III) | IPLA applies to injuries from a product used by a consumer | IPLA governs defective product claims only if product defects exist | Count III survives only to the extent of alleged defects; court analyzes manufacturing, design, and warning. |
| Whether Hathaway’s negligence claim (Count I) survives given IPLA predominance of product-service transaction | Relationship may be service-dominant; IPLA may not apply | Transaction predominately for sale of a product; IPLA applies | Count I survives; court finds relationship predominantly about service, denying summary judgment on Count I. |
| Whether plaintiff can establish manufacturing defect or alternative design defect under IPLA | Shirt deviates from intended design; alternative designs exist | No evidence shirt deviated from intended design; lack of cost-effective alternative design | Manufacturing defect and design defect theories rejected as to summary judgment; see analysis under Count III. |
| Whether the sophisticated intermediary doctrine bars duty to warn | Cintas failed to warn ultimate users; Quik Cut insufficient as intermediary | Under doctrine, warning duties may be delegated to sophisticated intermediary | Sophisticated intermediary doctrine applies; Cintas entitled to summary judgment on failure-to-warn claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifts to nonmovant when movant shows absence of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (dispositive standard for genuine issues of material fact)
- Pries v. Honda Motor Co., 31 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 1994) (design defect burden to show cost-effective alternative design)
- Whit ted v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.3d 1200 (7th Cir. 1995) (duty to design products free of flaws; cost-effectiveness of alternative design)
- Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2001) (failure-to-warn and design defect principles in IPLA context)
- Am. Eurocopter Corp., 378 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2004) (sophisticated intermediary doctrine elements met as matter of law here)
- Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment on design defect where no cost-effective alternative shown)
- Hill v. Rieth-Riley Const. Co., 670 N.E.2d 940 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (predominant thrust of contract for product vs. service analysis)
- Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, Inc., 913 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2009) (state-law interpretation on IPLA applicability)