McQuivey v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc.
335 P.3d 361
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Eight-year-old Conway Cook was wearing a Fulmer Blade AF-C1 helmet when he crashed his ATV; the helmet cracked and injured his face.
- Conway’s mother, Jamie McQuivey, sued KYL (Taiwanese manufacturer), Fulmer (distributor), and White Knuckle Motor Sports (seller).
- The district court dismissed Fulmer under the passive-retailer doctrine, and White Knuckle was dismissed earlier; KYL’s challenge to personal jurisdiction was granted.
- Fulmer argued it was a passive retailer not liable for design defects; McQuivey argued Fulmer participated in design, manufacturing, and testing.
- The court granted summary judgment for Fulmer, but the Utah appellate court reversed, finding Fulmer’s participation in design/manufacture disqualifies it as a passive retailer.
- The appellate court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Fulmer qualify as a passive retailer under Utah law? | McQuivey contends Fulmer participated in design/manufacture, so not passive. | Fulmer insists it did not design or manufacture, thus is passive. | Fulmer does not qualify as a passive retailer; district court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanns v. Butterfield Ford, 94 P.3d 301 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (passive retailer doctrine applied; retailer not liable when manufacturer is joined)
- Yirak v. Dan's Super Mkts., Inc., 188 P.3d 487 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) ( Dan's passive retailer; factual findings show no participation in design/manufacture)