Belva DAVIS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel R. Green, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Joseph McCOURT, Defendant, Interstate Arms, Incorporated, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO), Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.
No. 98-2188.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 31, 2000
Argued: Oct. 29, 1999
William E. Clark (argued and briefed), Clark & Knight, Southfield, Michigan, for Third party-Appellee Interstate Arms, Inc.
Leonard E. Nagi, Daniel J. Seymour, Paskin, Nagi & Baxter, Detroit, Michigan, Michael H. Selter (argued and briefed), Farkas & Manelli, Washington, D.C., for Third party-Appellee China North Industries Corp. (NORINCO).
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and SILER, Circuit Judges; RUSSELL, District Judge.*
OPINION
RUSSELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Belva Davis appeals from the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Interstate Arms Incorporated and Third-Party Defendant China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO). The district court concluded that it had proper jurisdiction under
BACKGROUND
In August 1994, sixteen-year-old Daniel Green and his friend Jimmy Ortiz stopped by Joseph McCourt‘s residence so that Ortiz could use the bathroom. McCourt, age 37, allowed Ortiz to enter the house and use the bathroom, but instructed Green to wait outside for his friend. While Ortiz was inside, McCourt retrieved his loaded MAK-90 semiautomatic rifle, removed the magazine clip and emptied out the shells. McCourt then reinserted the clip and walked outside to Green and pointed the rifle at him, “trying to scare him.” JA at 147. McCourt had fired the gun before and knew how it worked. He understood that “[y]ou can‘t take the bullet out by releasing the magazine once it‘s in the chamber.” JA at 151. Although McCourt claims to have checked to make sure a bullet was not in the rifle‘s chamber, the gun discharged a bullet, striking Green in the head and killing him. McCourt‘s rifle was not equipped with a load indicator, nor was there any type of warning with the rifle that a bullet may still be lodged in the rifle‘s chamber after the magazine clip had been removed. A jury convicted McCourt of involuntary manslaughter the following April.
In 1996, Green‘s estate filed suit against McCourt, Interstate, and NORINCO in Circuit Court in Wayne County, Michigan. Plaintiff alleges that Interstate and NORINCO were liable for designing a defective product and for failing to warn McCourt that a bullet may still be in the rifle‘s chamber even after the magazine clip is removed. NORINCO removed the case to District Court pursuant to
The district court, relying on case law from other circuits, concluded that it had proper jurisdiction under
JURISDICTION AND REMOVAL
Removal jurisdiction is a question of law. This Court reviews motions to remand de novo. See Michigan Affiliated Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. CC Systems Corp. of Michigan, 139 F.3d 546, 549 (6th Cir. 1998).
Appellant argues that the district court erred in holding that
The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (“FSIA“),
The FSIA gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions against foreign parties.1 Congress enacted the FSIA in part to create a uniform body of law by establishing federal courts as the preferred forum for cases involving foreign states. See H.R. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 32, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6604, 6631; In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana, 96 F.3d 932, 942 (7th Cir.1996). The FSIA includes Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), which provides in relevant part:
Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. Upon removal the action shall be tried by the court without jury.
Four circuits have addressed the issue of whether
Plaintiff urges this Court to break from the other circuits and adopt the position that
Plaintiff notes that
Both the statutory interpretation of “civil action” and history behind the FSIA lead this Court to follow the other circuits in holding that
The purpose and legislative history behind FSIA reinforce the position that a foreign third-party defendant may remove the entire case to district court under
Based on the history and purpose of
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This Court reviews a district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. Thus, this Court examines the record in the same manner as the district court. See Estate of Mills v. Trizec Properties, 965 F.2d 113, 115 (6th Cir.1992), citing Qualicare-Walsh, Inc. v. Ward, 947 F.2d 823, 825 (6th Cir.1991).
Summary Judgment is available under
“[N]ot every issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a genuine issue of material fact.” Street v. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir.1989). The test is “whether the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a jury question as to each element in the case.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir.1996). The plaintiff must present more than a mere scintilla of the evidence. To support his or her position, he or she must present evidence on which the trier of fact could find for the plaintiff. See id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
In order to establish a prima facie case in a products liability action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant manufacturer owed the plaintiff a duty of care. See Raines v. Colt Indus., Inc., 757 F.Supp. 819, 823 (E.D.Mich.1991), citing Glittenberg v. Doughboy Recreational Indus., Inc., 436 Mich. 673, 462 N.W.2d 348 (1990). Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be decided by the court. See id. Under Michigan law, a manufacturer owes no to duty to warn of an open and obvious danger associated with the use of a simple product. See id.; Fisher v. Johnson Milk Co., 383 Mich. 158, 161, 174 N.W.2d 752 (1970).
Michigan caselaw does not provide a clear test for determining the simplicity or complexity of a product. See Raines, 757 F.Supp. at 824. Michigan courts and the Sixth Circuit have, however, both contributed caselaw to clarify the status of the simple tool doctrine under Michigan law. The courts have categorized products as simple when one or both of the following conditions exist:
- The products are not highly mechanized, thus allowing the users to maintain control over the products;
the intended use of the products does not place the users in obviously dangerous positions.
Id. at 825. Courts have found, for example, that hammers, knives, gas stoves, axes, buzz saws, propeller driven airplanes, trampolines, and guns are simple products that differ from complex products in their simplistic operation and/or design. See id.; Treadway v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 950 F.Supp. 1326 (E.D.Mich.1996). The dangers presented by a loaded gun have also been found to be open and obvious. See id.
In this case, the parties do not dispute any genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff submits that the defendants failed to prove that the gun used was a simple product. In support, Plaintiff contends that guns are highly mechanized because “[t]here‘s several bits and pieces” which need to be cleaned. JA at 465. Plaintiff also points to the numerous hours army and police men spend training with guns as evidence that guns are not simple products. See id. Thus, Plaintiff submits, a gun is “not a simple tool that you just put on the shelf and you take it out, and you fire it,” despite the fact that this is precisely the factual scenario here. See id. Based on this argument, Plaintiff asserts the defendants still had a duty to warn McCourt about the possibility that a bullet may have been left in the chamber after the magazine clip was removed, or provide a safety device such as a load indicator. Caselaw holds the opposite.
Caselaw provides that a gun is a simple product.
The gun is not highly mechanized and is not power driven. It does not contain large, unwieldy parts that must be serviced and cause severe injury upon mere contact. Moreover, the normal and intended operation of the gun does not place the user in a dangerous position-defendant intended that users fire the gun not at themselves or innocent individuals, but at sporting targets, animals, or in the event of self-defense, at other humans. Just as a manufacturer cannot produce a hammer that will not mash, or a stove that will not burn, it is also true that a manufacturer cannot produce a gun that will not fire a bullet when it is, in fact, loaded and when the firing mechanism is deliberately engaged.
Raines, 757 F.Supp. at 825. Caselaw also provides that a gun presents an open and obvious danger to the suspecting user.
[The user] fully intended to perform the physical actions necessary to fire the weapon. He deliberately picked it up, inserted his finger through the trigger guard, pointed it at the head of [the decedent] and pulled the trigger. The loaded revolver fired when [the shooter] pulled the trigger. This is precisely the operation of the product which, according to its function, is reasonably expected. . . . In short, it performed according to its design. Only a defective person would fail to realize the obvious dangers associated with these actions. . . . A loaded firearm must be considered dangerous. . . . It is an instrument of death. That is its primary function. Yet, only deliberative action will cause discharge. When properly handled, the gun can be safely used.
Id. quoting Taylor v. Gerry‘s Ridgewood, Inc., 141 Ill.App.3d 780, 95 Ill.Dec. 895, 490 N.E.2d 987, 991 (1986). Although Plaintiff argues that he did not know the gun was loaded, that fact is irrelevant. Any gun safety course teaches and any reasonable gun user should know that no gun, loaded or unloaded, should ever be pointed at another human, much less pointed and mockingly fired. Accordingly, Michigan law does not require a manufacturer to design safety features to protect users from the dangers of a simple tool when the dangers are “obvious and inherent in the product‘s utility.” Treadway, 950 F.Supp. at 1332.
CONCLUSION
AFFIRMED.