Barnard v. Saturn Corp.
Citation | 790 N.E.2d 1023 |
Decision Date | 30 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 64A05-0206-CV-291.,64A05-0206-CV-291. |
Parties | Yvonne E. BARNARD, Administratrix of the Estate of Mark E. Barnard, Deceased, and Yvonne E. Barnard, Individually, Appellant-Petitioner, v. SATURN CORPORATION, A DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, General Motors Corporation, and Saturn of Northwest Indiana, Inc., Seeburn division of Ventra Group, Inc., Appellee-Respondents. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Jay Charon, Jon S. Diston, Spanger, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., Merrillville, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Julia Blackwell, Nicholas C. Pappas, Daniel D. Bobilya, Locke Reynolds, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
James R. Branit, John J. Bullaro, Thomas A. Carton, Bullaro & Carton, Chartered, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Appellee Seeburn.
Yvonne E. Barnard, administratrix of the estate of Mark E. Barnard, brought a wrongful death product liability suit in the Porter Superior Court against Saturn Corporation, a division of General Motors; General Motors Corporation; Saturn of Northwest Indiana, Inc. (collectively, "General Motors"); and Seeburn Division of Ventra Group, Inc. ("Seeburn"). The trial court granted both General Motors' and Seeburn's motions for summary judgment. We affirm.
Yvonne raises several issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as follows:
Mark and Yvonne purchased a 1996 Saturn SL1 from Saturn of Northwest Indiana, Inc. in May of 1996 that came equipped with a Seeburn car jack in the trunk. A spare-tire cover was located on the floor of the trunk of the vehicle. In order to reach the jack, a user of the car jack must physically remove the spare-tire cover. On the jack itself there were warnings and instructions. In addition, there were warnings within the Saturn owner's handbook and on the spare-tire cover pertaining to use of the jack. The specific warning on the jack itself stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 17. In addition to the warning provided on the jack itself, a warning in the vehicle owner's handbook stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 19. Another warning on page 236 of the owner's handbook stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 19. A warning on page 238of the owner's handbook stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 20. A warning on page 242 of the owner's handbook stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 21. Also, a warning on page 266 of the owner's handbook stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 22. Finally, warnings on the spare-tire cover in the trunk stated:
Appellee General Motor's Appendix at 23.
On March 16, 1997, Mark informed his wife that he was going to change the oil in their Saturn vehicle. Yvonne observed Mark as he drove the front wheels of the vehicle onto the sidewalk in front of the family home. While Yvonne was inside cooking dinner she heard a noise coming from outside the house. When she investigated, she found Mark pinned underneath the car. The front wheels were no longer on the sidewalk, but were flush against the sidewalk curb with the passenger side front wheel off the ground. Further, she observed that the car jack was leaning to one side, wedged in and stuck on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Yvonne initially attempted to drive the vehicle off of her husband, however the car would not move. She then attempted to remove the jack from underneath the car and use it in an attempt to free Mark. The jack, manufactured by Seeburn, operated in a scissor action. As the center nut is turned clockwise the jack raises. If the jack reaches its maximum height and the user continues to turn the center nut with 70 foot pounds, then the center nut will shear off. Once the center nut shears off, the jack becomes inoperable. When Yvonne applied force to the handle of the jack in order to try to free Mark the jack's center nut sheared off, rendering the jack inoperable.
Emergency personnel eventually extricated Mark from underneath the vehicle. However, Mark later died at the hospital on March 21, 1997, from the injuries he sustained.
On April 28, 1998, Yvonne filed suit against General Motors and Seeburn for damages resulting from Mark's death. On March 27, 2002, General Motors moved for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, Seeburn filed its own motion for summary judgment. On May 22, 2002, the trial court conducted a hearing and granted both General Motors' and Seeburn's motions for summary judgment. Yvonne filed her notice of appeal with the trial court on June 17, 2002, and this appeal ensued.
The trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and General Motors and Seeburn were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of product misuse. Yvonne, however, contends that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of General Motors and Seeburn because Mark's misuse was foreseeable to the manufacturers. Thus, she argues, General Motors and Seeburn are not entitled to summary judgment. We disagree.
In determining the propriety of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Harris v. Traini, 759 N.E.2d 215, 220 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied. Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. We construe all facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Id. The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no material factual dispute and which can be resolved as a matter of law. Id.
A trial court's grant of summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the party that lost in the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. Zemco Mfg., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 759 N.E.2d 239, 244 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied. A grant of summary judgment may be affirmed upon any theory supported by the designated materials. Id. at 244-45.
On appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, but we liberally construe all designated evidentiary material in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. To be considered genuine for summary judgment purposes, a material issue of fact must be established by sufficient evidence in support of the claimed factual dispute to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial. Street v. Shoe Carnival, Inc., 660 N.E.2d 1054, 1056-57 (Ind.Ct.App.1996).2
Yvonne contends that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of General Motors and Seeburn because Mark's misuse was foreseeable to the manufacturers. Therefore, she contends General Motors and Seeburn are not entitled to summary judgment.
Indiana Code section 34-20-2-1 states the grounds for a products liability action:
Indiana Code section 34-20-6-4 provides an affirmative defense to a products liability claim when a product is misused. The statute reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 1522 EDA 2016
...v. Thermo King Corp. , 2013 WL 6571946, at *10 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (quoting Whitted and citing Barnard v. Saturn Corp., a Div. of General Motors Corp. , 790 N.E.2d 1023, 1032 (Ind. App. 2003), which relies on a 1989 Indiana Court of Appeals case applying the old statute); Hartman v. EBSCO Indu......
-
Weigle v. SPX Corp.
...1326, 1341–44 (7th Cir.1995). “Foreseeable use and misuse are typically questions of fact for a jury to decide.” Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023,1028 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). Misuse is not a complete defense but is considered an aspect of comparative fault. See Chapman v. Maytag Corp., 2......
-
Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 71S03-0211-CV-00593.
...comparative fault pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-20-8-1. Chapman v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682, 689 (7th Cir.2002); Barnard v. Saturn Corp., 790 N.E.2d 1023, 1030 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. pending. The parties in this case make no argument along these lines and we express no opinion on it. 4. Cf......
-
Lindholm v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 3:15–CV–03003–RAL
..., the Indiana Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for the defendants because the decedent misused the vehicle's jack. 790 N.E.2d 1023, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In Barnard , a scissor jack was provided in the trunk of a vehicle and was accompanied by multiple warnings as to its use. ......