Richard L. Reynolds v. Robert J. Bordelon III, Robert J. Bordelon Jr., Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, and/or Auto Club Family Insurance Company D/B/A Triple a Insurance, Nissan North America, Infinity Division of Nissan North America, Inc., a Luxury Car Division of Nissan Motors, Insurance Auto Auctions Corp., Abc Insurance Company, Def Insurance Company and Xyz Insurance Company C/W State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as Subrogee of/and Linda Dupuy v. Robert Bordelon and Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, 172 So.3d 607

Background

On March 15, 2008, Richard Reynolds was injured in a multi-vehicle collision while driving a 2003 Infiniti G35S; he alleged the vehicle’s side/curtain airbags failed to deploy.
Reynolds sued under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) asserting construction/composition defect, design defect, inadequate warning, and express-warranty claims against Nissan.
Nissan moved for summary judgment; the trial court excluded several pieces of Reynolds’s proffered evidence (unauthenticated photographs, uncertified NHTSA printouts and internal reports, unsworn invoices, portions of the expert’s CV and relied-on materials, and certain emails) and granted Nissan’s motion.
The First Circuit affirmed; Reynolds sought and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review of the summary-judgment ruling.
The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding Reynolds failed to produce admissible evidence sufficient to meet his burden on each LPLA theory, including absence of proof of manufacturer specifications, alternative design, an inadequate warning, or a specific express warranty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was improper because the court excluded certain evidence	Reynolds argued excluded photos, NHTSA printouts, Nissan internal reports, dealership records, and portions of expert materials should have been considered	Nissan argued the proffered materials were inadmissible (unauthenticated, unsworn, irrelevant, hearsay, or not business records)	Evidence exclusions were proper; excluded items lacked authentication or other admissibility requirements
Whether Reynolds met his burden under LPLA for a construction/composition defect	Reynolds (via Dr. Baratta affidavit) contended the airbags should have deployed and thus the vehicle deviated from manufacturer standards	Nissan pointed to lack of proof of Nissan specifications or proof the vehicle deviated when it left manufacturer control; owner’s manual warned airbags may not inflate in certain collisions	Reynolds failed to present admissible factual support or expert foundation to show a deviation from Nissan’s specifications; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Reynolds proved a design-defect claim under LPLA	Reynolds alleged the airbag design failed to prevent his injuries	Nissan argued Reynolds offered no alternative design or proof such an alternative existed when the product left manufacturer control	No alternative design was identified or proven; design-defect claim fails as a matter of law
Whether Reynolds established an inadequate-warning or express-warranty claim	Reynolds argued Nissan failed to warn of a defect and effectively warranted airbag performance	Nissan relied on the owner’s manual disclaimers (airbags may not inflate in frontal/rear/low-severity collisions) and pointed to absence of any specific express warranty	Owner’s manual warnings were adequate for the claimed circumstances; no specific express warranty was identified—both claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 951 So.2d 1058 (La. 2007) (summary judgment burdens and procedure)
Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (explaining summary judgment burden-shifting and production requirements)
Alexander v. Toyota, 123 So.3d 712 (La. 2013) (LPLA interpretation on warnings/evidence issues)