K.M. ex rel. Arnold v. Steger Lumber Co. of Durant
296 P.3d 517
Okla. Civ. App.2012Background
- KM., a minor, injured at age 4 when he fell from a second-floor window at Crescent Creek Apartments; babysitter Barbara Boley was present but momentarily away; window had a sliding screen; kitten allegedly caused screen to dislodge; Steger Lumber distributed window/screen components; plaintiff claimed strict liability against Steger for defectively dangerous window/screen; trial court granted summary judgment for Steger and denied post-judgment relief
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved product defect caused injury | KM. injured by defect; defect present at manufacture | No defect caused injury; child unsupervised; not a consumer danger | No; plaintiff failed causation/defect proof |
| Whether the screen/window was unreasonably dangerous under Oklahoma strict liability | Screen defect made product unreasonably dangerous | Screen not a child restraint; ordinary consumer expectation not breached | No; not unreasonably dangerous; causation lacking |
| Whether trial court erred in denying continuance/new trial for discovery | Needed discovery to oppose summary judgment | Three years ample; no abuse of discretion | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether denial of post-judgment relief was proper | New evidence should allow reversal | Evidence untimely; no basis to vacate | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given causation requirements | Kelley-type causation evidence suffices | Plaintiff failed to show defect caused injury | Summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974) (defines unreasonably dangerous and causation elements in product liability)
- Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co., 704 F. Supp. 1039 (W.D. Okla. 1989) (defect not proven where injury caused by unattended child, not device)
- Pineda v. Ennabe, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 206, 61 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. App. 1998) (parental negligence can predominate the injury cause)
- Schlemmer v. Stokes, 117 P.2d 396 (Cal. App. 2d 1941) (screen not designed as a safety device to prevent falls)
- Jeld-Wen v. Gamble, 501 S.E.2d 393 (Va. 1998) (window screens not obligated to be child restraints)
- Lamkin v. Towner, 563 N.E.2d 449 (Ill. 1990) (screens designed to admit air/light, not prevent falls)
- Drager v. Aluminum Indus. Corp., 495 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. App. 1993) (no duty to design screen to prevent accidental dislodging)