62 F.4th 969
6th Cir.2023Background
- Lighting Resources (LR) purchased and used a hammermill shredder system to process airbag modules and seatbelt pretensioners; LR later sought a heavier-duty system.
- REI located and sold a used hammermill and assembled the system (input/discharge conveyors, fan, control panel); REI prepared five "Proposal Drawing" plans and conducted a test at its facility.
- The installed system lacked a functioning dust-collection system (despite a "dust collector" listed on REI's invoice); smoke issues prompted additional fan/ductwork.
- Two explosions occurred after installation and modifications; the second explosion killed Paul Cash. TOSHA concluded primary cause was accumulated combustible aluminum dust and absence of dust collection.
- Cash's estate sued REI under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) for negligent design/integration, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability (design defect and failure to warn); district court granted summary judgment for REI based on a contract-specification defense.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether REI substantially participated in the design/integration and thus summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether estate forfeited argument that the contract-specification defense is inapplicable to TPLA claims | Estate: defense should not apply to TPLA actions | REI: defense is available and was raised below | Forfeited — estate failed to raise this legal argument below; court assumes defense is viable under Tennessee law |
| Whether REI is entitled to summary judgment under the contract-specification defense (i.e., REI merely followed LR's specs) | Estate: REI substantially participated in design/integration (REI prepared drawings, chose components, contemplated dust collection) | REI: acted only as a vendor/installer following LR's existing system and instructions; not the designer | Reversed summary judgment — genuine dispute of material fact exists about REI's role; case must proceed |
| Whether LR, not REI, chose to exclude a dust-collection system and bore safety responsibility | Estate: evidence shows REI contemplated/handled dust-collection and thus had design responsibility | REI: LR requested system based on its existing setup and controlled safety choices | Disputed — record evidence is ambiguous; cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether the "obvious defect" exception to the contract-specification defense applies (plans patently dangerous) | Estate: design was obviously dangerous (absence of dust control) | REI: defense remains available unless plans were glaringly dangerous | Court declined to decide on summary judgment; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Komatsu Am. Indus. Corp., 42 S.W.3d 34 (Tenn. 2001) (component-parts doctrine imposing liability when integrator substantially participates)
- Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 656 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (describing contract-specification defense and its limits)
- Moon v. Winger Boss Co., 287 N.W.2d 430 (Neb. 1980) (formulation of the contract-specification/obvious-defect exception)
- Thompson v. Hirano Tecseed Co., 456 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2006) (contract-specification defense requires detailed customer specifications)
- Union Supply Co. v. Pust, 583 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1978) (collaboration between parties can preclude the defense)