Shon Hopper v. New Buffalo Corp.
664 F. App'x 530
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Aug. 2011 Hopper bought a lock-on tree stand and separately purchased New Buffalo’s ratchet tie-down straps; he discarded the straps included with the stand and used the ratchet straps to hang the stand.
- Hopper fell ~21 feet when the ratchet straps’ S-hooks straightened; he alleged design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, and KCPA violations against New Buffalo.
- Ratchet strap packaging described use to secure loads during transport and advertised a 750 lb capacity; New Buffalo’s catalog marketed the straps for truck/trailer/SUV load securing and camping/hauling uses.
- Hopper’s expert tested the straps and showed failure under 157 lbs, which Hopper argued made them unreasonably dangerous for his use.
- District court granted summary judgment for New Buffalo on all claims; on appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Hopper’s use was an unforeseeable misuse and outside the straps’ intended scope, so no genuine issue of fact existed on product defect or warranty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ratchet straps were unreasonably dangerous (strict liability/negligence) | Hopper: straps defectively designed and unsafe because they failed under low load in testing | New Buffalo: straps intended for transporting loads, not suspending tree stands; misuse to hang a stand 21 feet in air was unforeseeable as a matter of law | Held for New Buffalo — no genuine dispute that Hopper’s use was unforeseeable, so no recovery on defect/negligence theories |
| Whether misuse raised a jury question | Hopper: foreseeability of misuse is factual and should go to jury (citing Noel) | New Buffalo: Noel is fact-specific; here no material facts support foreseeability (few nonparty instances not persuasive) | Held for New Buffalo — misuse found unforeseeable as matter of law; summary judgment proper |
| Whether 750 lb packaging claim supports liability for suspension use | Hopper: advertised capacity shows dangerous mismatch between promised strength and actual failure | New Buffalo: packaging promises capacity for transport tying, not for vertical suspension from a tree; warranty scope limited to intended use | Held for New Buffalo — warranty claim fails because plaintiff used product outside intended use |
| Whether prior lawsuits/third-party uses create fact issue on foreseeability | Hopper: cited other cases and some anecdotal evidence of similar misuse | New Buffalo: cited cases and evidence do not create genuine factual dispute about foreseeability | Held for New Buffalo — cited cases/instances insufficient to create triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 100 F.3d 956 (6th Cir. 1996) (manufacturer must design product reasonably safe for intended and foreseeably probable uses)
- Noel v. S.S. Kresge Co., 669 F.2d 1150 (6th Cir. 1982) (misuse can be a jury question when evidence supports foreseeability)
- Ostendorf v. Clark Equip. Co., 122 S.W.3d 530 (Ky. 2003) (defective-design claims under Kentucky law require product to be unreasonably dangerous)
- Overstreet v. Norden Labs, Inc., 669 F.2d 1286 (6th Cir. 1982) (scope of warranty limited to product’s intended use)
- Bradley v. Ameristep, Inc., 800 F.3d 205 (6th Cir. 2015) (distinguishes replacement treestand straps from cargo tie-down straps)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine issue for jury when reasonable jury could return a verdict for nonmoving party)
- Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chemical, LLC, 836 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2016) (review of summary judgment is de novo)