78 So. 3d 691
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brandon Murray sustained severe burns when vapors from a Top Fuel fuel can ignited during a family fire on a backyard patio.
- Murrays sued Traxxas Corp. and Powermaster Hobby Products, Inc. for negligent design, negligent failure to warn, and related strict liability theories.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all counts, including the negligent design claim.
- On appeal, the Murrays challenge the grant of summary judgment specifically as to negligent design against Traxxas and Powermaster.
- Evidence included opposing expert testimony claiming a flashback/overpressure event and a Murrays’ expert opining the can lacked a flame arrestor.
- The can involved had been disposed of, with dispute over whether its contents and condition could be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on negligent design was proper | Murrays claim design defect caused flashback explosion; record supports inference of defect. | Without the can, causation and identity of contents cannot be proven; no testing possible. | Summary judgment improper; reverse and remand |
| Whether absence of the can precludes proving a design defect | Evidence and chain of custody support that the can contained original fuel; testing not required. | Cannot prove design defect without the specific can or testing. | Not fatal; inference supports design defect theory and remand warranted |
| Whether Torres v. Matsushita governs the outcome | Torres is distinguishable; undisputed evidence of lack of flame arrestor is not fatal to design claim. | Torres controls; cannot prove defect without testing the can. | Torres distinguished; design defect theory viable without testing of the specific can |
| Whether the Murrays’ expert fire-chemistry testimony is admissible to prove a design defect | Expert linked overpressure and lack of arrestor to defect and preventable failure. | Expert opinion insufficient to show defect without can testing. | Admissible and probative; supports design defect theory |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further proceedings to develop the design-defect theory | Further proceedings could include testing on similar cans to establish defect. | Insufficient proof without testing the actual can. | Remand for further proceedings to develop the theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Fournier, 57 So.3d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (summary judgment standard; genuine issues preclude judgment)
- Holland v. Verheul, 583 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact)
- Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 928 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (evidence and burdens in negligence cases)
- Carter v. Cessna Fin. Corp., 498 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (speculation and conjecture insufficient to create issues on summary judgment)
- Torres v. Matsushita Electric Corp., 762 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (distinguishes when evidence is insufficient to prove causation without testing)
- Reed v. Alpha Prof’l Tools, 975 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (use of photographs and exemplar in proving product defect; spoliation issues)
- Vincent v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 944 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (duty, breach, causation, and damages in design defect cases)