Mariscal v. Graco, Inc.
52 F. Supp. 3d 973
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Mariscal was injured when a 2008 Graco Magnum X7 airless paint sprayer "exploded" while he was loosening the hose coupling to clear a suspected clog; debris entered his eyes and caused lasting injury. He was not wearing safety glasses at the time.
- Mariscal had a used, dirty sprayer given to him, replaced the filter, cleaned hoses, followed the Sprayer's Pressure Relief Procedure from the Operation Manual, and believed pressure had been relieved before loosening the coupling. He testified he did not read the entire manual and likely did not read the first few pages containing some warnings.
- The Operation Manual contained a general Personal Protective Equipment warning (including eyewear) in the warnings section, but the Pressure Relief Procedure page did not display the PPE hazard symbol or an explicit eyewear warning.
- Mariscal sued Graco in California state court asserting breach of implied warranty, negligence (design and failure to warn), and strict liability (design defect and failure to warn); Graco removed and moved for summary judgment.
- Court excluded plaintiff’s untimely Second Expert Opinion (new opinions about requiring a pressure gauge and inadequacy of warnings) but allowed the First Expert Opinion; overruled objection to Mariscal's declaration statements.
- Court granted summary judgment on breach of warranty and negligent design claims; denied summary judgment on strict liability design (consumer expectation and risk-benefit with limited discovery), strict liability failure-to-warn, and negligent failure-to-warn claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of late expert report | Rondinone's May 22 report simply expanded earlier opinions and is usable | Untimely, prejudicial supplemental expert disclosure; Rule 26/37 exclusion warranted | Excluded Second Expert Opinion as untimely and prejudicial under Rule 37(c)(1) |
| Breach of implied warranty | Sprayer was defective and caused injury | Plaintiff abandoned claim by failing to oppose | Granted for Graco (claim conceded/abandoned) |
| Strict liability — design defect (consumer expectation) | Lack of pressure indicator made product less safe than an ordinary user would expect | User should know to wear eye protection; plaintiff's failure to wear glasses caused injury | Denied as to consumer expectation test — triable factual dispute exists |
| Strict liability — design defect (risk-benefit) | Inclusion of pressure gauge was feasible and would have prevented accident | Design benefits outweigh risks; no defect | Denied; plaintiff made prima facie showing and defendant failed to present Barker balancing evidence (but court allowed defendant limited discovery for risk-benefit expert) |
| Strict liability — failure to warn | Pressure-relief page lacked explicit PPE symbol/warning; absence of specific warning was a substantial factor | Warnings existed in multiple locations; plaintiff didn't read them or knew the risks | Denied — genuine dispute whether warning was adequate and whether plaintiff read or was on notice |
| Negligent design | Sprayer negligently designed by omitting pressure indicator | No admissible evidence of industry standard or reasonable care; X7 met testing | Granted for Graco — plaintiff lacked admissible evidence to establish industry standard/appropriate care (expert excluded) |
| Negligent failure to warn | Graco knew product reached unsophisticated users and should have given clearer warnings | Warnings provided were adequate; plaintiff's knowledge or failure to read breaks causation | Denied — factual dispute remains about reasonableness of warnings and causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and view of evidence at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant's burden and Rule 56 principles)
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (California tests for design defect: consumer expectation and risk-benefit)
- Campbell v. General Motors Corp., 32 Cal.3d 112 (consumer expectation test application and sufficiency of plaintiff testimony)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (limits on expert testimony about consumer expectations)
- Huitt v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 188 Cal.App.4th 1586 (causation standard for failure-to-warn being a substantial factor)
- Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion of undisclosed expert opinions)
- Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978 (moving party’s burden when it will bear the burden of proof at trial)