Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.
2011 MT 175
Mont.2011Background
- Brandon Patch, an 18-year-old pitcher, was fatally struck by a ball off an aluminum CB-13 bat during a 2003 baseball game.
- Patched filed a 2006 strict products liability suit on survivorship and wrongful death theories against Hillerich & Bradsby Co. (H&B) for design defect and failure to warn.
- District Court granted summary judgment on manufacturing defect but denied it on design defect and failure-to-warn claims; in limine, it barred H&B's assumption-of-risk defense.
- Trial in 2009: jury found no design defect but held H&B liable for failure to warn, awarding $850,000; judgment denied H&B’s Rule 50(b) motion.
- This Montana Supreme Court affirmed, addressing whether bystanders can recover for failure to warn and whether the trial court properly instructed and limited defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure-to-warn claims extend to bystanders | Patch argues bystanders may recover under Restatement § 402A and Montana law. | H&B contends only users/consumers may recover; bystander claims are unworkable. | District court properly denied summary judgment; bystander recovery allowed. |
| Whether the causation proof supports denial of Rule 50(b) | Flexible proof allows inference that warning would have changed behavior. | Riley strictures require specific proof of warned behavior; evidence insufficient. | Court properly denied Rule 50(b); flexible standard applied. |
| Whether the in limine ruling on assumption of the risk was correct | Brandon could not have knowingly assumed the risk given lack of specific knowledge. | Assumption of risk should bar claim if reasonably aware of danger. | Assumption of risk inapplicable; no evidence Brandon knew of enhanced bat risks. |
| Whether jury instructions properly conveyed law on failure to warn | Use of 'bystander' is proper to reflect game context; Riley-based causation not required here. | Instruction should reflect 'ordinary user' standard and avoid Riley inference. | Instructions were correct; no reversible error evident. |
| Whether verdict should be set aside for new trial | Causation and inference issues warrant reconsideration. | No error warranting new trial. | No new trial warranted; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, 513 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1973) (broad consumer/user definitions extend §402A duties to bystanders)
- Streich v. Hilton-Davis, 692 P.2d 440 (Mont. 1984) (failure to warn bystander claims viable across buyers and users)
- Hagen v. Dow Chem. Co., 863 P.2d 413 (Mont. 1993) (recognizes broader consumer expectations in products liability)
- Emery v. Federated Foods, Inc., 863 P.2d 426 (Mont. 1993) (causation can be satisfied by warning altering use or precautions)
- Riley v. American Honda Motor Co., 856 P.2d 196 (Mont. 1993) (addressed proof of causation via warning effectiveness; flexible standard remains)
- Wood v. Old Trapper Taxi, 952 P.2d 1375 (Mont. 1997) (flexible proof of causation under products liability)
- McAlpine v. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., 2000 MT 383, 304 Mont. 31 (Mont. 2000) (instructional clarity and prejudice analysis in jury verdicts)
- Schutte v. Celotex Corp., 492 N.W.2d 773 (Mich.App. 1992) (permitting inference when consequences are severe and claimant dead)
- Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 399 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1968) (alternative warning methods beyond direct product labeling)
- Macrie v. SDS Biotech Corp., 630 A.2d 805 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993) (warning workability questions for complex toxic exposures)