Malen v. MTD Products, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23806
7th Cir.2010Background
- Malen sustained a severe laceration after stepping off a reconditioned Yard-Man mower with the blade engaged.
- The mower’s Operator Presence Control (OPC) and No Cut in Reverse (NCR) safety devices were unconnected at the time of the accident.
- Malen had previously tested the mower and was aware of warning labels advising to stop the blade before leaving the seat.
- MTD Products manufactured the mower (1998 design) and Home Depot sold a reconditioned unit equipped with safety interlocks that could be bypassed.
- Plaintiffs allege the mower was negligently manufactured and defectively designed because the OPC/NCR were not fail-safe and the device was not wired properly; defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal based on Malen’s conduct as sole proximate cause.
- On summary judgment, the district court concluded Malen’s actions were the sole cause, prompting appeal for proper consideration of defect and proximate cause under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mower was defective due to an unconnected OPC/NCR. | Malen; OPC unconnected made mower unreasonably dangerous. | MTD/Home Depot; lack of OPC connection not a defect; danger from blade открыт. | A reasonable jury could find defect in construction/design. |
| Whether the OPC/NCR failure was a proximate cause of the injury. | Defect in safety interlock proximate to injury. | Injury timing suggests operator actions sole cause. | A jury could conclude the defective condition proximate caused the injury. |
| Whether crashworthiness doctrine applies to riding mowers under Illinois law. | Foreseeable accidents require safety measures; crashworthiness applicable. | Not clearly applicable to riding mowers; causation disputed. | Illinois crashworthiness doctrine potentially governs, allowing a jury question. |
| Whether reconditioning/remanufacturing status affects liability for a reconditioned mower. | Reconditioned sale can be first sale; strict liability applies. | As-is/used status limits liability; no clear Illinois standard. | Record supports jury determination on remanufacture liability. |
| Whether Malen’s conduct could bar recovery under comparative fault. | Even with negligence, causation still supports recovery. | Malen’s actions more than 50% proximate cause. | Comparative fault not dispositive; jury could assign partial fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 83 Ill.App.3d 272 (Ill. App. 1980) (OPC safety relevance in defective riding mowers under Illinois law)
- Norton v. Snapper Power Equip., Div. of Fuqua Indus., 806 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1987) (OPC safety devices and defect considerations in design)
- Eyre v. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 755 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1985) (OPC design and negligence considerations in mower injuries)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 398 Ill.App.3d 222 (Ill. App. 2010) (Negligence/design defect standards in Illinois product liability)
- Buehler v. Whalen, 70 Ill.2d 51 (Ill. 1977) (Crashworthiness doctrine applicability to product injuries)