Pitman v. Ameristep Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:14CV00085 ERW,2:14CV00085 ERW |
| Citation | 208 F.Supp.3d 1053 |
| Parties | Dennis D. PITMAN, Plaintiff, v. AMERISTEP CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Brent A. Lance, Lance Law Firm, Cottleville, MO, Daniel J. Bruntrager, Bruntrager and Billings, St. Louis, MO, Timothy W. Monsees, Monsees and Mayer, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
Milton Stanley Karfis, Bishop A.L.E. Bartoni, Clark Hill PLC, Detroit, MI, Scott Kehlenbrink, Childress Ahlheim Cary, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Ameristep Corporation, Tahsin Industrial Corporation USA and Wal–Mart Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 35].
Plaintiff Dennis Pitman ("Plaintiff") initiated this lawsuit on July 31, 2014, in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Missouri. Defendants Ameristep Corporation and Wal–Mart Stores, Incorporated1 removed the matter to this Court on August 29, 2014. Wal–Mart Stores, Incorporated was dismissed on July 22, 2016. Plaintiff's First Amended Petition asserts two claims against Defendants Ameristep Corporation and Tahsin Industrial Corporation USA ("Defendants") including negligence and strict liability. Defendants filed the current Motion for Summary Judgment asserting Plaintiff fails to establish a design, manufacturing, or failure to warn defect and the sole cause of the accident was Plaintiff's misuse of the product. The uncontroverted facts are as follows.
Plaintiff purchased a ratchet strap from Wal–Mart. He claims it was purchased in 2010, but he does not have proof of purchase, the packing, or the written instructions. Plaintiff estimates he has purchased hundreds of ratchet straps over the years. On this occasion, Plaintiff purchased two six-foot, one-inch camouflage ratchet straps manufactured in 2008. The strap he purchased is used to replace ratchet straps on tree stands. The strap is used by wrapping it around the back of the tree and securing the hook ends to the tree stand.
The user then tightens the strap through the ratchet mechanism.
The ratchet straps were purchased as a dual package, and both straps had identical webbing material. Over 1.8 million of these straps have been sold since 2006, and they are all comprised of the same polypropylene material. The tree stand industry has utilized this material for straps to secure tree stands for over two decades. Defendants began manufacturing the strap at issue in this matter in 2006. Approximately 1.8 million of these straps have been manufactured using the same webbing supplier, webbing components, webbing polypropylene material, manufacturing facility, manufacturing process, and design.
The factory engineering and design team, with the webbing supplier, selected the polypropylene material. The factory had two decades of experience using this material in the outdoor tree stand application. The polypropylene material, including the entire ratchet assembly, was tested both in-house and by a third-party laboratory. New straps are able to withstand in excess of 1,000 pounds of load before structurally failing. Defendants sent ratchet assemblies to a third-party facility to conduct independent testing of the straps, particularly the polypropylene webbing material.2 This facility confirmed the straps were more than strong enough for a loaded capacity of 300 pounds for use on tree stands. The webbing supplier provided supplier certifications the material was of sufficient strength. Numerous testing laboratories tested the strap material and the results demonstrate the straps can withstand between 1,200 to 1,300 pounds. The parties agree the material used in the straps will deteriorate when exposed to the elements such as moisture, temperature fluctuations, freezing, sunlight, and tree growth.
The warnings and instructions provided with the strap state:
The NBEF4 tree stand safety video has been used with tree stands since 1999, and has been included with new packages of tree stands Plaintiff purchased. The video shows the correct and proper way to hang a tree stand using screw-in steps or climbing sticks, as well as the correct way to use a full-body safety harness and climbing belt. This video illustrates the way to be "double attached," which means the hunter's harness is connected to both the climbing belt under the tree stand and the tree strap above the stand before the hunter enters the stand.
Plaintiff has used a number of different products with the ratchet straps including a hang-on tree stand, tree steps, and a climbing stick. Plaintiff also owned a full-body safety harness and an electric lineman's safety harness. He used these when hunting and when installing and taking down his tree stands. Many of these products he purchased over the years were new and came with written warnings, instructions, and videos. Plaintiff would have read all the warnings and instructions packaged with his hunting products and always tried to follow the instructions and warnings.
As for the strap at issue in this matter, Plaintiff knew there was a label on the strap providing warnings but did not read this label. Plaintiff does not claim the strap did not come with written warnings and instructions, but he does not remember seeing them in the package. Plaintiff admitted he reviewed numerous warnings and instructions over the years and had never been confused about how to use a safety harness, lineman's climbing belt, or any other tree stand product. Plaintiff testified he had reviewed other ratchet strap warnings and instructions prior to the accident.
Plaintiff claims he installed this ratchet strap for the first time in September 2010 to secure one of his hang-on tree stands. Plaintiff states the strap remained in the same tree and was removed in early to mid-January 2011. Then, Plaintiff claims the straps were stored indoors and installed again on the day of his fall. Additionally, Plaintiff claims the exact same usage for the other strap that was included in the package. The strap at issue was retrieved from the scene a few days after the fall and given to Plaintiff's attorney. The other strap was given to Plaintiff's attorney in October 2012. The current discoloration and condition of the two straps are the same as they were at the time of Plaintiff's fall.
On the day of the accident, Plaintiff intended to hang three to four tree stands. Plaintiff inspected the strap before he took it down in January 2011, and before installing it on the day of the fall. According to Plaintiff, he installed the climbing stick and tree steps, climbed up, pulled up the stand, placed it, and secured it by ratcheting down the strap. After no more than three seconds, when Plaintiff tried to throw his safety belt around the tree and rehook it, the ratchet strap on the tree stand "popped." Plaintiff was wearing his lineman's belt but was not connected to the tree at the time the strap popped. He was not wearing his safety harness. Plaintiff knew he was at risk of serious injury or death when in an elevated position while not properly secured to the tree.
Plaintiff has been working as a hunting guide since the late 1990s. Plaintiff knew he needed to store his equipment inside when not in use, to wear a full-body safety harness, and to inspect the equipment prior to use. He testified he always took down all his hang-on tree stands at the end of every hunting season and would store his tree stands and ratchet straps indoors. He would throw away any ratchet straps needing replacement. Plaintiff is aware the webbing material in the strap will deteriorate and break down when exposed to the elements and would not last forever. This is why Plaintiff would cut off the ratchet straps securing his tree stand and replace them every two years. Plaintiff also knew it was important to inspect the product, including the ratchet straps before each use. Plaintiff was aware he needed to wear a full-body safety harness and if he did not, he risked falling and getting injured. Plaintiff's expert admitted all hunting safety organizations instruct users of the importance of wearing a safety harness.
A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment only if the moving party shows "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). By definition, material facts "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and a genuine dispute of material fact is one "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If the non-moving party has failed to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dunham's Athleisure Corp.
...In Missouri, strict liability can be based on a design defect, manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn. Pitman v. Ameristep Corp. , 208 F.Supp.3d 1053, 1060 (E.D. Mo. 2016) (citing Magnuson by Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. , 844 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) ). There is no dispute that......
-
Tucker v. Ethicon, Inc.
...Corp., 908 S.W.2d 772, 776 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (discussing characteristics of a manufacturing defect); and Pitman v. Ameristep Corp., 208 F.Supp.3d 1053, 1061 (E.D. Mo. 2016) ("A manufacturing defect has occurred when the consumer purchases or uses the productand it is not in its intended c......
-
Gillan v. Wright Med. Tech. Inc.
...demonstrated that the product at issue deviated from the manufacturer's intended result); see also Pitman v. Ameristep Corp. , 208 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1061 (E.D. Mo. 2016) (expert testimony that strap failed because it did not perform to defendant's listed capabilities is sufficient to withst......
-
Howard v. Bosch Thermotechnology Corp.
...include an adequate warning, and that the plaintiff was damaged as a result of the lack of adequate warning. Pitman v. Ameristep Corp., 208 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1061-62 (E.D. Mo. 2016). "The last element requires boththe product without the warning caused the plaintiff's injuries and the warni......