Guilkey v. Truck
| Decision Date | 22 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-50-DLB-CJS |
| Parties | JEFFREY GUILKEY PLAINTIFF v. COMMERCIAL TRUCK & VAN EQUIPMENT, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
This is a personal injury case removed from Campbell Circuit Court. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff Jeffrey Guilkey alleges that the truck he was cleaning at a car dealership had a defective tailgate that failed to support his weight, causing him to fall and suffer serious injuries. (Doc. # 53 at 5). Guilkey sued Omaha Standard, LLC, the manufacturer of the tailgate, as well as Commercial Truck & Van Equipment, Inc. ("Commercial"), which assembled the truck, bringing claims for products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. (Id. at 6-12). Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment as to all claims. (Docs. # 96 and 97). Guilkey has abandoned his breach of warranty claims, (Docs. # 103 at 15 and 104 at 17), but has cross-moved for summary judgment on his products liability and negligence claims, (Doc. # 108).
Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the tailgate was defective and, furthermore, that Commercial was negligent in either assembling the truck or in failing to discover the defect, Commercial's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in relevant part. However, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact that the tailgate was defective when it left Omaha Standard's possession three years prior to the accident. Omaha Standard's Motion for Summary Judgment is accordingly granted. Finally, as disputes of fact exist regarding the cause of Plaintiff's fall, Plaintiff's cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are denied.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Guilkey was employed as a lot technician for Jeff Wyler, a Chrysler dealership in Fort Thomas, Kentucky. (Doc. # 53 at 4). On March 1, 2017, Guilkey was cleaning a Dodge Ram 5500 commercial pickup truck when he fell off the back of the truck bed, breaking his wrists and elbow and tearing his biceps muscle. (Docs. # 97-11 at 3 and 108-13 at 2). Guilkey alleges that the tailgate of the truck collapsed, causing him to fall. (Docs. # 53 at 5 and 97-2 at 6).
The truck's tailgate is part of what is known as a general service body that was manufactured by Defendant Omaha Standard and sold to Defendant Commercial in May 2014. (Docs. # 96-6 and 96-7). Commercial stored the service body for nearly three years until Wyler needed a truck, at which point Commercial installed the service body onto a chassis (base frame) that was manufactured by Chrysler. (Docs. # 96-8 at 5 and 104-11 at 2). The assembly process involved lifting the service body with a crane, setting it onto the frame, bolting and welding it, and attaching a hitch. (Doc. # 104-10 at 7). Once completed, the truck was delivered to Wyler on February 27, 2017, (Doc. # 96-8 at 8), and then sold by Wyler to Enterprise Fleet Management, (Doc. # 97-1 at 5). The truck was sold again soon thereafter to a company called Bansal Construction. (Doc. # 97-1 at 4-6).
In February 2018, Guilkey sued Commercial and Chrysler (the manufacturer of the chassis) in Campbell Circuit Court. (Doc. # 1-3 at 8). Commercial removed the case to this Court in March 2018. (Doc. # 1). Chrysler was later dismissed from the litigation. (Doc. # 45). In the operative Second Amended Complaint, Guilkey names Commercial and Omaha Standard as defendants and brings claims of (1) strict liability, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of implied warranty of fitness, (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (5) negligence, and (6) punitive damages. (Doc. # 53 at 6-12). Along with its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint, Commercial brought a cross-claim against Omaha Standard for apportionment of fault under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182. (Doc. # 56 at 11-13).
At the conclusion of discovery, Commercial and Omaha Standard moved for summary judgment as to all Guilkey's claims, (Docs. # 96 and 97), and Guilkey cross-moved for summary judgment on his strict liability and negligence claims. (Doc. # 108). In addition, Omaha Standard moved to exclude the testimony of Guilkey's expert, Clinton Channell. (Doc. # 109). These Motions have been fully briefed (see Docs. # 103, 104, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116), and are now ripe for the Court's review.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The "moving party bears the burden ofshowing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact." Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 532 F.3d 469, 483 (6th Cir. 2008). Once a party files a properly-supported motion for summary judgment, by either affirmatively negating an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or establishing an affirmative defense, "the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient." Id. at 252.
The Court must "accept [the non-moving party's] evidence as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor." Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 726 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). The Court may not "make credibility determinations" or "weigh the evidence when determining whether an issue of fact remains for trial." Id. (citing Logan v. Denny's, Inc., 259 F.3d 558, 566 (6th Cir. 2001)). "The ultimate question is 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Back v. Nestle USA, Inc., 694 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52). If there is a dispute over facts that might affect the outcome of the case under governing law, the entry of summary judgment is precluded. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
Commercial is not entitled to summary judgment on Guilkey's strict liability claim because triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the tailgate on the service body was defective at the time Commercial sold and delivered it to Wyler. Kentucky law "imposes strict liability on one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonablydangerous to the user or consumer, even though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of the products." Niehoff v. Surgidev Corp., 950 S.W.2d 816, 822 (Ky. 1997). To prevail on a theory of strict products liability in Kentucky, a plaintiff must show that a product (1) "was not manufactured or assembled in accordance with its specifications" and (2) that the product defect caused his injuries. Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Sys., Inc., 409 F.3d 784, 788 (6th Cir. 2005) (applying Kentucky law).
Plaintiff has demonstrated a material issue of fact regarding whether the tailgate was defective. Although Guilkey lacks direct evidence of a defect, he may prove his manufacturing defect claim solely through circumstantial evidence. Holbrook v. Rose, 458 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Ky. 1970). There is ample circumstantial evidence indicating that the tailgate malfunctioned when it collapsed underneath Guilkey, causing him to fall to the ground. Three of Guilkey's colleagues nearby that day testified unequivocally that they heard a loud banging sound immediately prior to Guilkey's fall and saw the tailgate in the "down" position after his fall, indicating that the tailgate had collapsed and smacked the back of the truck. (Docs. # 104-3 at 2-3, 6, 104-4 at 2-3, and 104-5 at 3-4). Although none of these individuals saw Guilkey fall, they all attributed the sound they heard to the tailgate's impact against the truck rather than to Guilkey's body hitting the ground. (Docs. # 104-3 at 3, 104-4 at 3, and 104-5 at 3-4). In addition, according to Wyler employee Darren Matlock, who came to Guilkey's aid shortly after his fall, Guilkey pointed in the direction of the tailgate and stated that it "f-ing collapsed on him." (Doc. # 104-3 at 4).
A reasonable jury could also find that the defective tailgate was the legal cause of Guilkey's injuries. The tailgate that allegedly collapsed had not been in use since it was manufactured by Omaha Standard, thereby largely ruling out the possibility that thetailgate failed due to misuse or wear and tear. See Perkins v. Trailco Mfg. & Sales Co., 613 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Ky. 1981) (). In addition, Commercial maintained exclusive control of the service body for almost three years prior to the accident and delivered the truck to Wyler a mere two days before the accident occurred. This evidence suggests that the alleged defect existed when Commercial placed the service body into the stream of commerce.
Commercial noticeably does not attempt to explain how the tailgate would have collapsed absent a defect. Commercial instead proposes an alternative explanation for Guilkey's fall. It surmises that Guilkey put the tailgate down so that it would be easier to climb in and out of the truck and then fell off when he misjudged the distance to the end of the service body. (Doc. # 97 at 7). This theory is supported by the testimony of Wyler employee Dustin McClenithan, who remembered Guilkey saying that he had been walking backwards on the bed of the truck right before his fall. (Doc. #...
To continue reading
Request your trial