676 F. App'x 413
6th Cir.2017Background
- In 2010 Yonts, a recreational archer, purchased an Easton carbon arrow second‑hand and, upon drawing and releasing it, the shaft broke and impaled his hand.
- The only warning Yonts had was a brief legend printed on the arrow: “SEE WARNINGS & USE at www.bsafe.ws or 877‑INFO‑ETP.” He admitted he saw this legend but did not visit the website or call the number.
- The website contained detailed inspection and testing instructions for carbon arrows warning that damaged arrows can break and injure users.
- Yonts sued Easton for strict and negligent products liability (including failure‑to‑warn), breach of express and implied warranty, and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA).
- Yonts proffered human‑factors expert Dr. Carol Pollack‑Nelson; the district court excluded her opinions under Rule 702/Daubert and granted summary judgment to Easton on all claims.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held the expert exclusions were not an abuse of discretion, Yonts lacked evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition or what warning was required, and second‑hand purchasers lack warranty/KCPA standing under Kentucky law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of human‑factors expert testimony | Pollack‑Nelson’s opinions show the on‑arrow legend was inconspicuous and inadequate to warn; causation and adequacy require her human‑factors analysis | Opinions were irrelevant, beyond her qualifications, or unreliable for linking warning form to the specific risk of carbon‑shaft breakage | Affirmed exclusion: first two opinions irrelevant; third beyond qualifications; fourth unreliable for lack of technical basis to assess risk |
| Failure‑to‑warn (strict and negligent) | The on‑arrow message was inadequate and caused Yonts not to learn the inspection instructions; Easton’s reliance on the website is insufficient | No evidence identifying an unreasonably dangerous condition that required a different warning or what warning would be required; causation lacking | Affirmed summary judgment: plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of the risk’s likelihood/seriousness tied to warning adequacy, so no triable issue of an unreasonably dangerous condition |
| Breach of express warranty | Yonts argued he should be able to enforce Easton’s warranties despite being a second‑hand purchaser | Kentucky law limits express warranty recovery to original buyers/household members; no privity for remote second buyers | Affirmed summary judgment: no contractual privity/standing under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.2‑318 as construed by Kentucky decisions |
| KCPA claim and punitive damages | Yonts sought consumer‑protection relief and punitive damages for alleged deceptive/inadequate warnings | KCPA and punitive relief require an action against seller/manufacturer with whom plaintiff dealt; second‑hand purchaser lacks standing | Affirmed: no KCPA recovery for a subsequent purchaser not in privity; punitive damages not reached because primary claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Rye v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 889 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1989) (standard of review for district court evidentiary rulings)
- Post v. American Cleaning Equipment Corp., 437 S.W.2d 516 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968) (warning adequacy judged by whether it conveys underlying risk to a reasonable consumer)
- Montgomery Elevator Co. v. McCullough, 676 S.W.2d 776 (Ky. 1984) (Kentucky follows Second Restatement approach requiring a defective condition unreasonably dangerous for products liability)
- Ostendorf v. Clark Equipment Co., 122 S.W.3d 530 (Ky. 2003) (distinguishing strict liability from negligence and explaining proof requirements)
- Edwards v. Hop Sin, Inc., 140 S.W.3d 13 (Ky. Ct. App. 2003) (analysis of likelihood and seriousness when evaluating warning adequacy)
- Williams v. Fulmer, 695 S.W.2d 411 (Ky. 1985) (interpretation of warranty‑privity limits under Kentucky law)
- Clark v. Hauck Manufacturing Co., 910 S.W.2d 247 (Ky. 1995) (rejecting an instruction requiring both defective design and inadequate warning to find strict liability)
- Skilcraft Sheetmetal, Inc. v. Kentucky Machinery, Inc., 836 S.W.2d 907 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992) (subsequent purchaser may not maintain KCPA action against a seller with whom he did not deal)