Clift v. Vose Hardware, Inc., 2003-389-Appeal.
Citation | 848 A.2d 1130 |
Decision Date | 28 May 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 2003-389-Appeal.,2003-389-Appeal. |
Parties | Paul M. CLIFT et al. v. VOSE HARDWARE, INC., et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Thomas Bruzzese, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Dan McKiernan, Esq. for Vose Hardware.
James Clark, Esq. for T.W. Evans.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and SUTTELL, JJ.
This is a products-liability case arising out of a bungee-cord accident. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint on summary judgment. It did so because the plaintiffs, Paul M. Clift (Clift) and Susan L. Clift (collectively, the Clifts), failed to adduce any evidence showing that the defendants, Vose Hardware, Inc. (Vose) and T.W. Evans Cordage Co., Inc. (Cordage), either manufactured, distributed, designed, or sold the product in question: namely, a certain bungee cord that Clift used to secure storm doors on a delivery truck. The cord at issue accidentally injured Clift when it gave way and snapped into his head, blinding him in his left eye. Because the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact and because Vose and Cordage were entitled to the entry of a judgment in their favor, we affirm the summary judgment.
On May 26, 1998, Clift was an employee of Harvey Industries, Inc. (Harvey), a distributor of storm doors. As he was securing a storm door on a Harvey truck, a bungee cord gave way and struck Clift in his left eye, resulting in the loss of his sight in that eye. On May 24, 2001, the Clifts filed this action against Harvey, Vose, and Cordage.1 They alleged negligence breach of warranty, and strict liability against both Vose and Cordage. Vose moved for summary judgment, alleging that the Clifts had failed to present any evidence showing that Vose had sold the subject bungee cord to Harvey. Moreover, Vose argued, even if it had sold the bungee cord in question to Harvey, no evidence showed that this bungee cord was defective. Thereafter, Cordage also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Clifts had failed to present any evidence to substantiate their claims that the subject bungee cord was manufactured, designed, or distributed by Cordage.
A Superior Court motion justice granted the summary-judgment motions with respect to both defendants and the court entered final judgment in their favor. On appeal, we ordered the parties to show cause why we should not decide the appeal summarily. Because they have not done so, we proceed to resolve this appeal at this time.
In granting summary judgment in this case, the motion justice examined the affidavit that Clift submitted, the pleadings, and the other evidence presented to him, and ruled that the Clifts could not establish any facts to support their claims that the bungee cord either was sold by Vose or manufactured by Cordage. The motion justice said:
We agree with the motion justice. See, e.g., Gomes v. Mossberg Industries, Inc., 762 A.2d 1196, 1198 (R.I.2000) (per curiam)
(. )
1 Louis R. Frumer & Melvin I. Friedman, Products Liability, § 3.04[1] at 3-46 to 3-48 (2002).
Although, in some instances, circumstantial evidence may be used to establish the identity of the manufacturer or the seller of a defective product, id. at 3-50, such evidence Id. at 3-50 to 3-50.1.
Here, in opposition to defendants' motions for summary judgment, the Cliffs filed a conclusory affidavit to support their claims; one that failed to substantiate their allegation that defendants either manufactured or sold the bungee cord that injured the plaintiff.2
As the motion justice aptly noted, the affidavit merely contained conclusory assertions and suppositions that Vose sold the bungee cord, rather than setting forth specific facts. Moreover, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.
...Elite , 420 F.3d at 1326 n.5. Rhode Island products liability law requires product identification. See Clift v. Vose Hardware, Inc. , 848 A.2d 1130, 1132 (R.I. 2004) (per curiam) (noting that "it is axiomatic that a plaintiff must prove that the proximate cause of his or her injuries was th......
-
State v. Lead Industries, Ass'n, Inc.
...Town of West Warwick, 865 A.2d 1019, 1023 (R.I.2004) (discussing the causation requirement in negligence actions); Clift v. Vose Hardware, Inc., 848 A.2d 1130, 1132 (R.I.2004) (discussing the causation requirement in the products liability context); Salk v. Alpine Ski Shop, Inc., 115 R.I. 3......
-
Rhode Island v. Atl. Richfield Co.
...harms, the plaintiff must plead and eventually prove by a preponderance facts matching harms to defendants. See Clift v. Vose Hardware, Inc., 848 A.2d 1130, 1132 (R.I. 2004) ("The identification element of causation-in-fact requires the plaintiff to establish a sufficient connection between......
-
Larngar v. Wall
... ... State, 865 A.2d 1064, 1068 (R.I.2005); Heath v. Vose, 747 A.2d 475, 478 (R.I.2000); Brennan, 627 A.2d at 844; ... ...