Kelley By and Through Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV-88-67-B.,CIV-88-67-B. |
| Citation | 704 F. Supp. 1039 |
| Parties | Jonathan KELLEY, a minor, By and Through his parents and next friends, Billy Jack KELLEY, Sr. and Lora Kelley; Billy Jack Kelley, Sr., Individually; and Lora Kelley, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. RIVAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
John M. Merritt, Michael T. Rooney, Ron Collier, Celia A. Rooney, James Potts, Merritt, Rooney, & Hayden, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.
James W. Shepherd, Andrews, Davis, Legg, Bixler, Milsten & Murrah, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.
The plaintiffs in this action, Jonathan Kelley, a minor, and his parents, Lora and Billy Jack Kelley, Sr., seek $5.5 million in actual damages and $10 million in punitive damages from the defendant Rival Manufacturing Company ("Rival") for injuries sustained by Jonathan Kelley, when he caused a Rival Crock-pot slow cooker ("Crock-Pot") to fall off of a kitchen table and its heated contents spilled on him. Federal jurisdiction is founded upon diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, since the plaintiffs are residents of Oklahoma and the defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Missouri.
On October 25, 1988, the defendant Rival filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, supported by a memorandum brief, exhibits, and deposition testimony. The plaintiffs filed a Response on November 9, 1988, and on December 1, 1988, Rival's Reply Brief was filed with leave of court. On December 6, 1988, the court set a hearing on the Motion, inviting the parties to submit additional evidence, including oral testimony. At the hearing on December 19, 1988, no additional evidence was presented by either party, and following oral argument, the court issued a bench ruling granting the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2551-52, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
1. On February 16, 1986, the plaintiff Jonathan Kelley, a minor, was injured when the heated contents of a Rival Model 3100 Crock-Pot slow-cooker spilled on him. Deposition of Lora Kelley, p. 29, ln. 13-25; p. 30, ln. 1-25; Plaintiffs' Complaint, p. 4.
2. Plaintiffs Billy Jack Kelley, Sr. and Lora Kelley, parents of Jonathan Kelley, were the original and only owners of the Crock-Pot. When Lora Kelley unpacked the Crock-Pot she saw the enclosed instruction booklet describing the Crock-Pot's proper use and important safety features but did not read these provisions. L. Kelley Dep., p. 59, ln. 15-25; p. 60, ln. 1-17; p. 61, ln. 24-25; p. 62, ln. 1-16
3. On the day of the accident, Lora Kelley had prepared beans in the Crock-Pot which had been cooking for almost a full day. L. Kelley Dep., p. 49, ln. 18-25.
4. In preparation for serving the family meal, the Crock-Pot was unplugged and was used not as an appliance, but simply as a serving container at the table. The Kelleys have four children whose ages at the time of the accident were:
(a) Jonathan Kelley 11 months old
(b) Charity Kelley 7 years old
(c) B.J. Kelley 2½ years old
(d) Steven Kelley almost 1 month
old
L. Kelley Dep., p. 51, ln. 2-25; p. 52, ln. 1-17; p. 90, ln. 20-25; p. 91, ln. 1-25; p. 92, ln. 1-7; Deposition of Billy Jack Kelley, Sr., p. 34, ln. 7-16.
5. The table on which the Crock-Pot was sitting had a smooth formica top, with a metal lip around the edge. The Crock-Pot was not plugged in during the meal. The Crock-Pot stands on three heat-resistant hard plastic feet one inch in height. The Crock-Pot cord was not dangling over the edge of the table. L. Kelley Dep., p. 150, ln. 20-25; p. 151, ln. 1-18; p. 152, ln. 17-25; p. 153, ln. 1-22; Deposition of William S. Endres, p. 18, ln. 15-18.
6. After finishing the meal, Billy Jack Kelley went to the bedroom to smoke. Lora Kelley stayed to clear the table, but a short time after the others had left the kitchen, she also left the kitchen to go to the bathroom. However, she did not remove the Crock-Pot from the table. L. Kelley Dep., p. 29, ln. 13-20; p. 31, ln. 10-23. As she left, she told her seven year old daughter, Charity, to "keep an eye" on Jonathan. L. Kelley Dep., p. 76, ln. 17-24. Charity was in the living room area connected to the kitchen, as were Jonathan, B.J. and Steven. Jonathan was in his walker, which consisted of a seat situated on a frame with a wheeled base. L. Kelley Dep., p. 92, ln. 19-25; p. 93, ln. 18-25; p. 94, ln. 1-17.
7. Lora Kelley knew that Jonathan could move around the house in his walker by jumping up and down in it. Jonathan had pulled over her shelves of collectibles only a week before the accident. L. Kelley Dep. p. 77, ln. 3-11; p. 96, ln. 8-17; Affidavit of Lora Kelley, ¶ 7. Jonathan could not move the walker forward at all, only backwards. L. Kelley Dep. p. 96, ln. 8-15.
8. Lora Kelley agrees that close supervision is necessary if a small child is near a pot of cooking beans, and she is aware of children being injured by pulling pots of hot foods off stoves. L. Kelley Dep., p. 75, ln. 19-25; p. 76, ln. 1-3; p. 85, ln. 15-24. Neither Lora Kelley nor Billy Jack Kelley placed the Crock-Pot on a shelf or counter where it would be out of reach. They left it sitting on the table when they left the kitchen. L. Kelley Dep., p. 31, ln. 10-23. The Crock-Pot was a little less than three-quarters full of heated beans. L. Kelley Dep., p. 134, ln. 9-22.
9. Although Jonathan could not climb up on top of the table, Lora Kelley knew that Jonathan was able to reach the top of the table by himself while standing in his walker. L. Kelley Dep., p. 84, ln. 10-13.
10. After using the bathroom, Lora Kelley did not immediately return to the kitchen; she went to the doorway of the bedroom where her husband was smoking. Shortly thereafter, they heard a thud and then ran to the kitchen, where they found Jonathan in his walker covered with hot beans. Hot beans were also on the floor. After falling on the tray of the walker, the Crock-Pot ended up on the floor on its side intact, most of the contents having spilled. L. Kelley Dep., p. 88, ln. 15-25; p. 89, ln. 1-9; p. 152, ln. 6-16; Affidavit of Billy Jack Kelley, Sr., ¶ 3.
11. Lora Kelley had used this Crock-Pot and another Crock-Pot on previous occasions. L. Kelley Dep., p. 59, ln. 12-14; p. 72, ln. 25; p. 73, ln. 1-25; p. 74, ln. 1-14. Lora Kelley was aware that the manufacturer included an instruction booklet with the Crock-Pot but stated that she did "not have time" to read it L. Kelley Dep., p. 60, ln. 13-17; p. 61, ln. 24-25; p. 62, ln. 1-10; p. 139, ln. 11-12, although the Kelleys had owned the crock-pot for some seven weeks before the accident. L. Kelley Dep., p. 59, ln. 24-25. Billy Jack Kelley also never read the instruction booklet before the accident. B.J. Kelley Dep., p. 12, ln. 3-9.
12. The "IMPORTANT SAFEGUARDS" which Lora Kelley did not have time to read are contained on one page inside the cover of the instruction booklet.
13. The back page of the instruction booklet also contained an additional warning about the use of the product.
14. Rival manufactured the Crock-Pot in compliance with Underwriters Laboratories standards. W. Endres Dep., p. 6, ln. 20-25; p. 7, ln. 1, 14-15; p. 11, ln. 18-25; p. 12, ln. 1-15; p. 17, ln. 14-17; p. 19, ln. 4-9; p. 24, ln. 15-16; Deposition of J. Fred Jesse, p. 12, ln. 9-25; p. 13, ln. 1-7; p. 21, ln. 17-22. Underwriters Laboratories provides necessary guidelines to manufacturers regarding the design and manufacture of various products. W. Endres Dep., p. 44, ln. 8-18.
15. Lora Kelley left the glass top off of the Crock-Pot when the family finished eating, while the beans were cooling. L. Kelley Dep., p. 136, ln. 8-12.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, since the plaintiffs are residents of the State of Oklahoma and the defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Missouri, and the amount in controversy is over $10,000.00.
Under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff in a manufacturers products liability action must prove that: (1) the defective product was the cause of the injury; (2) the defect was in the product at the time it left the manufacturer's possession and control; and (3) the defect made the product "unreasonably dangerous" to the consumer. Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 709 P.2d 684, 688 (Okla.1985); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1363 (Okla.1974).
The term "unreasonably dangerous" under Oklahoma law means that "the article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics." Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 447 (10th Cir.1976); Lamke v. Futorian Corp., 709 P.2d 684, 688 (Okla.1985); Hagan v. EZ Mfg. Co., 674 F.2d 1047, 1051 (5th Cir.1982); Mayberry v. Akron Rubber Machinery Corp., 483 F.Supp. 407, 414 (N.D.Okla.1979); Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co., 586 P.2d 726, 730 (Okla.1978); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1362-63 (Okla.1974); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment i.
Appellate courts have not hesitated to affirm decisions of trial courts that have concluded that particular manufacturers were entitled to summary judgment in products liability actions. Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 449 (10th Cir.1976); Burton v. L. O. Smith Foundry Products Co., 529 F.2d 108, 112 (7th Cir.1976); Gates v. Ford Motor Co., 494 F.2d 458, 460 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horst v. Deere & Co.
...products. Courts have thus held that it is the ordinary consumer or user's expectations that govern. See Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co., 704 F.Supp. 1039, 1043 (W.D.Okla. 1989) (in a case involving a small child who was injured by pulling a crock-pot onto himself, the question of whether the croc......
-
Calles v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.
...v. Universal Match Corp., 778 F.Supp. 1421, 1425 (E.D.Tenn. 1991), aff'd, 966 F.2d 1451 (6th Cir.1992); Kelley v. Rival Manufacturing Co., 704 F.Supp. 1039, 1043 (W.D.Okla.1989); Welch v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 651 N.E.2d 810, 814 (Ind.App.1995); Bellotte v. Zayre Corp., 116 N.H. 52, 54, 352 ......
-
Bondie v. Bic Corp.
...Prentis, 421 Mich. at 682-83, 365 N.W.2d 176. A child may, unfortunately, harm itself with many things. See Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co., 704 F.Supp. 1039 (W.D.Okl.1989) (hot pot); Bellotte v. Zayre Corp., 531 F.2d 1100 (1st Cir.1976) (pajamas); Brawner v. Liberty Indus., Inc., 573 S.W.2d 376 (......
-
Curtis v. Universal Match Corp.
...71 (Tenn.App.1988); Pemberton v. American Distilled Spirits Co., 664 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn.1984); see also Kelley By and Through Kelley v. Rival Mfg. Co., 704 F.Supp. 1039, 1043 (W.D.Okla.1989); Bellotte v. Zayre Corp., 352 A.2d 723 (N.H.1976). In the present case, the intended and ordinary cons......