Jones v. NordicTrack

• Decision Date: 26 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-9169,Docket No. 97-03266-1-CV-MHS,98-9169
• Citation: 236 F.3d 658
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2000) LAURA JEANNE JONES, WILLIAM LEONARD JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORDICTRACK, INC., NORDICTRACK FITNESS AT HOME, Defendants-Appellees. D. C
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 658

236 F.3d 658 (11th Cir. 2000)

LAURA JEANNE JONES, WILLIAM LEONARD JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORDICTRACK, INC., NORDICTRACK FITNESS AT HOME, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-9169

D. C. Docket No. 97-03266-1-CV-MHS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 26, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this product liability action, Plaintiffs-Appellants Laura and William Jones appeal the district court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of NordicTrack, Inc. and Nordic Track Fitness at Home ("NordicTrack"). The district court granted the motion because Laura Jones was not using the NordicTrack when she was injured, and therefore, the court held, NordicTrack could not be liable for her injuries. We CERTIFY THE QUESTION to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

I. BACKGROUND

The Joneses brought a product liability suit against NordicTrack after Laura Jones tripped and fell against the NordicTrack "Achiever" in their recreation room. The blunt chrome leg penetrated into the rear of Laura Jones's right thigh and buttock, severing two veins in her thigh and damaging an artery and a nerve in her leg. The Joneses sued on grounds of strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, and loss of consortium.

NordicTrack filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that use of a product is a predicate to liability under Georgia law. Therefore, they argued, NordicTrack is not liable for Laura Jones's injuries because she was not using the NordicTrack when she was injured. The Joneses responded that NordicTrack was liable because the risk of an exposed steel leg outweighs the benefits of that particular design. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the product was not in use at the time of the accident. The Joneses appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when no issues of material fact are raised in the pleadings and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1996). We review a judgment on the pleadings de novo. Id at 1524-25. In so reviewing, we accept the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.

A. Georgia Law Unclear

The parties disagree on whether a product must be in use for the manufacturer to be liable for injury caused by that product. We certify this question pursuant to Rule 46 of the Supreme Court of Georgia because "there are . . . questions or propositions of the laws of this State which are determinative of said cause and there are no clear controlling precedents in the appellate court decisions of this State." Id. The question of whether the NordicTrack had to be in use for NordicTrack to be liable for Laura Jones's injuries is determinative of the outcome of this case, as evidenced by the district court's judgment on the pleadings on that basis. The district court concluded that Georgia law requires a product to be in use at the time of injury in order for a manufacturer to be held liable for a design defect. However, although each of the cases and statutes cited in the district court's opinion can be read in the manner described by the district court, we disagree that the specific question of use has been addressed by the courts or the legislature.

The district court cites Official Code of Georgia 51-1- 11(b)(1) for the conclusion that a product has to be in use for a manufacturer to be liable for injury. The district court correctly cites that a manufacturer is liable when the product is, "not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended." O.C.G.A. 51-1-11(b)(1). However, the same section grants the right to bring action under this section to "any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property." Id. Therefore, it is not clear that the Georgia Code requires a person to be using a product in order for the manufacturer to be liable for injury caused by that product.

The district court also cites Friend v. General Motors Corp., 165 S.E.2d 734 (Ga. 1968) in support of its conclusion. Friend defines "use" to mean that a product has to be safe for both, "the purposes for which it is intended, and for other uses which are foreseeably probable." Id. at 736. However, Friend does not answer the specific question of whether a product must be in use for the manufacturer to be held liable for an injury proximately caused by the product.¹

Finally, the district court relies on Hatch v. Ford Motor Co., 329 P.2d 605 (Ca. 1958). In Hatch, the California appellate court held that the manufacturer had no duty "to render a vehicle safe to collide with rather than simply a duty to so manufacture it as to make it safe for the use for which it is intended." Id. at 607. While Hatch clearly supports the district court's ruling, it has not been cited by Georgia courts for the proposition at issue in this case.² Also, the ruling has since been called into doubt in California. See, e.g., Knippen v. Ford Motor Co., 546 F.2d 993, 1001 (D.C.Cir. 1976) ("Both Hatch and Kahn were decided before their respective jurisdictions adopted the Larsen rule."); Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., 501 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Ca. 1972) ("Although a collision may not be the `normal' or intended use of a motor vehicle, vehicle manufacturers must take accidents into consideration as reasonably foreseeable occurrences involving their products.") (citing Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495, 501-03 (8th Cir. 1968)). Therefore, we turn to the Supreme Court of Georgia to decide whether to adopt the logic of Hatch or frame a different standard.

The Joneses argue that the risk-utility analysis adopted in Banks v. ICI Americas, 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1994) (vacated on other grounds) controls this case. In Banks, the Supreme Court of Georgia overruled past cases and decided that Georgia would apply a risk-utility analysis when deciding whether a design defect case would be heard by a jury, as is the custom in the majority of the states and treatises they surveyed. Id. at 673. However, there is no discussion in Banks on whether the product has to be in use for the risk-utility analysis to apply and, because the case was remanded, the court did not consider the question of whether the rat poison was "in use" when the child drank it.³ Id. at 675.

By deciding to certify this question to the Supreme Court of Georgia, we are not questioning the district court's interpretation of Georgia law. Rather, we are asking the Georgia court to clarify an aspect of the product liability law that is subject to several interpretations. Because the statutory language is ambiguous and the only case to directly address this question comes from a California court, we are asking the Supreme Court of Georgia to rule on this question.

B. Certification

Georgia law requires that we define the specific question to...