King Bradley, Jr. v. Ameristep, Inc.
800 F.3d 205
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bradley purchased polypropylene ratchet straps (manufactured by Ameristep, distributed by Primal Vantage) and used them to secure a hunting treestand; straps were exposed to weather in 2008, stored, then used again in 2011 when they catastrophically failed, causing Bradley to fall and be injured.
- Plaintiffs sued (strict product liability, negligent design/manufacture, failure to warn — strict and negligent, loss of consortium, and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims).
- District court excluded plaintiffs’ experts (Powell and Davison) on product-defect issues; Powell’s exclusion was based on an assessment that his expertise was primarily metallurgical and sparse regarding the strap webbing; Davison’s testimony was also excluded for lack of polymer/design expertise.
- After excluding experts, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on product-defect claims for lack of admissible expert proof of defect/causation, and also dismissed failure-to-warn claims reasoning Bradley knew the general risks and failed to propose an adequate alternative warning; loss-of-consortium dismissed as derivative.
- On appeal, Bradley challenged (1) exclusion of Powell, (2) the district court’s view that Tennessee law requires expert testimony for product-defect claims (i.e., disallowing the consumer-expectation test), (3) dismissal of failure-to-warn claims, and (4) dismissal of loss-of-consortium.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification of Powell as expert under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Powell is a materials-failure analyst with 35+ years and experience with polymers and webbing; thus qualified to opine on strap failure | Powell’s background is metallurgical and insufficiently specific to polypropylene/webbing failure | Reversed: district court abused discretion in concluding Powell was limited to metallurgy and thus unqualified |
| Necessity of expert testimony for product-defect claims / applicability of consumer-expectation test | Consumer expectation test applies; lay jurors can decide whether ordinary consumers would expect straps to survive short-term weather exposure — expert testimony not always required | Chemical/polymer composition and degradation are beyond ordinary knowledge, so expert proof is necessary | Reversed: Tennessee consumer-expectation test may apply; expert testimony is not invariably required to prove design/manufacture defect |
| Failure-to-warn adequacy and causation | Warnings were ambiguous (e.g., meaning of “use”) and gave no inspection criteria or lifespan guidance; factual dispute exists whether warnings adequately communicated risk or caused injury | Bradley had actual knowledge of risk and plaintiffs did not produce an adequate alternative warning with empirical support | Reversed: district court erred to dismiss solely for lack of expert proof because consumer-expectation analysis and lay evidence can raise material issues about warning adequacy and causation |
| Loss-of-consortium (Christine) | Derivative of Bradley’s claims; survives if underlying claims survive | Dismissed because underlying claims dismissed | Reversed: dismissal dependent on other claims; remand warranted because underlying claims reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2000) (discusses expert proof and causation in products-liability cases)
- Jackson v. General Motors Corp., 60 S.W.3d 800 (Tenn. 2001) (Tennessee recognizes consumer-expectation and prudent-manufacturer tests for product danger)
- Browder v. Pettigrew, 541 S.W.2d 402 (Tenn. 1976) (product defect may be shown by lay proof of malfunction plus circumstantial evidence)
- Brown v. Raymond Corp., 432 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes when expert warnings evidence is required for complex products)