868 N.W.2d 373
N.D.2015Background
- An explosion in a neighboring building damaged the Messers’ property; the explosion originated in space leased by B&B Hot Oil Service where two hot oil trucks were stored.
- One truck was a 2005 Energy Fabrication (EnerFab) vehicle; the other was a 2009 “knockoff” truck reverse-engineered and jointly constructed by B&B and JB’s Welding (JB).
- Investigation found propane present; it concluded the explosion resulted from a propane leak from the reverse-engineered truck, which lacked an electronic failsafe shutoff present on the EnerFab design.
- The Messers sued B&B and JB alleging strict products liability (manufacturer) and negligent design/manufacture for failing to include an electronic failsafe valve and for JB’s work on the firebox/propane lines.
- JB moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it, finding no joint design/manufacture, no continuing defect from JB’s control, and no duty or proximate causation for negligence.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding genuine factual disputes exist about JB’s status as a manufacturer and whether JB’s conduct/proximate causation and duties should be decided by a trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JB is a "manufacturer" for strict products liability | JB helped construct the knockoff firebox and delivered the truck without the electronic failsafe, making it a manufacturer | JB only welded the shell/firebox, did not design/install propane system or safety valves, and was not in the business of selling trucks | Reversed: factual dispute exists whether JB acted as a manufacturer; jury must decide |
| Whether product defect (absence of failsafe) existed when truck left JB's control | The failsafe should have been integrated during JB’s assembly of the firebox; its absence made the truck unreasonably dangerous | The truck was substantially changed by B&B after JB's work; no defect shown to exist post-JB control | Reversed: dispute over when/where failsafe should have been installed precludes summary judgment |
| Whether JB owed a duty / breached duty in negligence theory | JB had duty to exercise reasonable care in design/assembly and to warn of inherent dangers; failure to install failsafe breached that duty | JB had no duty to install or instruct B&B to install the electronic shutoff; not proximate cause | Reversed: duty and proximate cause hinge on JB’s status and factual findings for trier of fact |
| Whether proximate cause links JB’s conduct to Messers’ damages | Absence of failsafe in JB-assembled components proximately caused propane leak/explosion | Propane system/automatic controls were B&B’s responsibility; JB’s work was not proximate cause | Reversed: proximate causation is a factual question for the jury given disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc., 703 N.W.2d 316 (N.D. 2005) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Endresen v. Beretta USA Corp., 560 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1997) (elements of products liability and manufacturer status as factual question)
- Crowston v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 521 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1994) (duty is a preliminary question of law; existence of duty may depend on facts)
- Beckler v. Bismarck Pub. School Dist., 711 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 2006) (elements of negligence claim)
- Oanes v. Westgo, Inc., 476 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 1991) (negligent design claims require proof product is defective)
- Lindenberg v. Folson, 138 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1965) (manufacturer owes duty where product is inherently dangerous or likely to place life and limb in peril)
- Butz v. Werner, 438 N.W.2d 509 (N.D. 1989) (where duty depends on factual determinations, jury should resolve facts)
- Stillwell v. Cincinnati Inc., 336 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1983) (manufacturer liability parameters are factual questions)