Taylor v. Southwire Tools & Equipment, 130 F. Supp. 3d 1017

In Nov. 2013 Bobby Taylor, an Excel Mining electrician, suffered second-degree burns when a Southwire-branded Southwire Model 11060S multimeter allegedly experienced an internal arc flash.
The multimeter was manufactured and packaged in China by Shenzhen Everbest; Shenzhen worked with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for testing; Southwire distributed Shenzhen’s product to retailers (e.g., Lowe’s) without modification.
Taylor sued Southwire for products liability, alleging design/manufacture defects (waterproofing failure, inadequate component spacing, inability to handle +10% voltage) that caused the arc flash; Excel intervened to recover workers’ comp payments.
Southwire moved for summary judgment invoking Kentucky’s Middleman Statute (KRS 411.340) and arguing Taylor lacked proof of defects; court applied Kentucky law in diversity case.
The parties agreed Southwire met two statutory elements (manufacturer subject to jurisdiction; product sold in same condition received) and that Southwire lacked actual knowledge of defects; dispute centered on three exceptions: (1) apparent manufacturer theory, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) reason-to-know of dangerousness.
Court held Southwire protected by the Middleman Statute and granted summary judgment for Southwire; other pending motions denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of the Middleman Statute vs. "apparent manufacturer" doctrine	Taylor: Southwire advertised itself as manufacturer, so should be liable as apparent manufacturer	Southwire: Kentucky hasn’t adopted apparent-manufacturer doctrine; statute controls	Court: Kentucky hasn’t adopted doctrine; statute preempts it — Southwire protected
Breach of express warranty exception (privity)	Taylor: packaging/website warranties (e.g., waterproofing) create express warranty	Southwire: warranties arose from Shenzhen/Lowe’s chain; Taylor/Excel lack privity with Southwire	Court: Privity required; no buyer-seller relationship with Southwire — warranty exception fails
"Reason to know" exception to middleman protection	Taylor: distributor should have known of defect (implied by packaging claims and incident)	Southwire: no reports of other failures (~12,000 units sold); Shenzhen/UL tested product; no role in testing; no visible defect	Court: No evidence Southwire had specific/special knowledge; exception not met
Summary judgment standard and sufficiency of proof	Taylor: expert links moisture/dust to failure; factual disputes exist	Southwire: insufficient evidence of defect or distributor knowledge to create triable issue	Court: Drawing inferences for non-movant, plaintiff still lacks evidence to overcome statutory defense — summary judgment granted

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Scheick v. Tecumseh Pub. Sch., 766 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.) (drawing inferences for nonmovant at summary judgment)
Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 668 (6th Cir.) (summary judgment principles)
BMW Stores, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 860 F.2d 212 (6th Cir.) (choice-of-law in diversity cases)
Worldwide Equip., Inc. v. Mullins, 11 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. Ct. App.) (middleman statute scope)
Parker v. Henry A. Fetter Supply Co., 165 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. Ct. App.) (purpose of middleman statute to protect sellers who merely distribute)
Steel Techs., Inc. v. Congleton, 234 S.W.3d 920 (Ky.) (statutory terms control over conflicting Restatement provisions)
Commonwealth ex rel. Cowan, 828 S.W.2d 610 (Ky.) (courts defer to legislature on statutory scope)
Williams v. Fulmer, 695 S.W.2d 411 (Ky.) (privity required for warranty claims)
Compex Int’l Co. v. Taylor, 209 S.W.3d 462 (Ky.) (refusing to extend warranty protections beyond privity)
Overstreet v. Norden Labs., Inc., 669 F.2d 1286 (6th Cir.) (catalog/advertisement can create express warranty, but privity still controls)