215 F. Supp. 3d 134
D. Mass.2016Background
- On Oct. 12, 2014, Anthony Provanzano dismounted his riding mower after perceiving a grass clog; while reaching under the cutting deck he suffered amputation of four fingers.
- The mower was manufactured by MTD Products Co. and purchased at Lowe’s Home Centers.
- The mower has a PTO (blade engagement) lever next to a deck-height lever on the right fender and an operator presence control (OPC) located in the seat frame designed to stop blades when the rider’s weight is removed.
- Plaintiff alleges the mower was defective (design and warning defects), causing injury, and asserts breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and Chapter 93A claims against MTD and Lowe’s.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims; the court considered causation, alternative designs, warning adequacy, and need for expert proof of duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty | Provanzano asserts warranties attached to mower purchase | Defendants say no evidence plaintiff relied on any express warranty | Denied as to plaintiff; Court granted summary judgment for defendants on express warranty (no reliance evidence) |
| Breach of implied warranty — design defect | OPC placement and linking to PTO or placing OPC in seat cushion would reduce blade-stop time and risk | MTD says plaintiff cannot show an alternative design would have reduced harm; control layout changes irrelevant | Court denied summary judgment; plaintiff proffered sufficient alternative-design/causation evidence for jury |
| Breach of implied warranty — warnings defect | Lack of warning on chute tube could have altered plaintiff’s conduct and prevented injury | Defendants argue plaintiff/ expert cannot show different warnings would have changed outcome (no legal causation) | Court denied summary judgment; factual dispute exists about whether warnings contributed to injury |
| Negligence and Chapter 93A claims | Plaintiff relies on same defect/warning theories to show negligence and unfair practice | Defendants argue lack of causation and (Lowe’s) no duty to test to ANSI standards | Court denied summary judgment on negligence and Chapter 93A; causation and duty issues present factual questions for jury; expert not required to show Lowe’s had a duty to test to ANSI |
Key Cases Cited
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (summary judgment role in assessing need for trial)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and reasonable jury standard at summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting at summary judgment)
- O’Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905 (1st Cir. 1993) (view the record in non-movant’s favor)
- Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass. 633 (1978) (implied warranty — fitness for ordinary purposes)
- Lally v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 317 (1998) (elements for implied warranty claim)
- Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 465 Mass. 411 (2013) (implied warranty may rest on manufacturing, design, or warning defects)
- Uloth v. City Tank Corp., 376 Mass. 874 (1978) (alternative design that reduces risk can create jury question)
- Colter v. Barber-Greene Co., 408 Mass. 50 (1989) (negligence duty/breach framework for product sellers)
- Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008) (c.93A claims tied to same facts as implied warranty)
- Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316 (2002) (existence of duty is question of law; expert not always required)
- Bergendahl v. Mass. Elec. Co., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 715 (1998) (noncompliance with industry standards not conclusive on negligence)