Walker v. Alliance Outdoor Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:20cv773–HEH |
| Citation | 567 F.Supp.3d 723 |
| Parties | Richard WALKER, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE OUTDOOR GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
William Brent Kilduff, Christopher Leonard Spinelli, Emroch & Kilduff LLP, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff.
Nathan Henry Schnetzler, Sean C. Workowski, Frith Anderson & Peake PC, Roanoke, VA, Barry Brys Sutton, Pro Hac Vice, Steven Douglas Brock, Pro Hac Vice, Clark Hill PLC, Birmingham, MI, for Defendants.
(Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment)
This matter is before the Court on Alliance Outdoor Group, Inc. and Alliance Outdoor Products, Inc.’s (collectively "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"), filed on September 2, 2021. (ECF No. 33.) Richard Walker ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint on October 2, 2020, alleging products liability and breach of warranty claims against Defendants. ( Compl., ECF No. 1.) Both sides have filed memoranda supporting their respective positions. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on October 13, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute on Count One and Count Four of the Complaint, precluding summary judgment on those two claims. However, the Court will grant the Motion as to Counts Two and Three.
The standard of review for summary judgment is well settled in the Fourth Circuit. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The evidentiary basis on which such motions are resolved may include depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The relevant inquiry in a summary judgment analysis 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." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of a party's case. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Hogan v. Beaumont , 779 F. App'x 164, 166 (4th Cir. 2019). A genuine issue concerning a material fact only arises when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is sufficient to warrant a reasonable jury to return a verdict in that party's favor. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Indeed, summary judgment must be granted if the nonmoving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party as well as conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion. Tom v. Hosp. Ventures LLC , 980 F.3d 1027, 1037 (4th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, to deny a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he disputed facts must be material to an issue necessary for the proper resolution of the case, and the quality and quantity of the evidence offered to create a question of fact must be adequate ...." Thompson Everett, Inc. v. Nat'l Cable Adver. , 57 F.3d 1317, 1323 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). " Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc. , 487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). When applying the summary judgment standard, courts must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Holland , 487 F.3d at 213.
Courts may make inferences based on expert testimony in the record. See Textron Inc. ex rel. Homelite Div. v. Barber-Colman Co. , 903 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (W.D.N.C. 1995). "Thus, the inferences a court is asked to draw by expert testimony must be reasonable in light of competing inferences." Id. "Neither the factual assumptions underlying an expert's opinion nor the expert's inferences from the facts assumed are automatically established by the absence of directly countering expert opinion." Erie Ins. Exch. v. Stark , 962 F.2d 349, 353 (4th Cir. 1992). "The credibility of competing experts is a question for the jury only if the party with the burden of proof has offered enough evidence to sustain a verdict in its favor." Alevromagiros v. Hechinger Co. , 993 F.2d 417, 421 (4th Cir. 1993).
The parties have submitted their respective statements of undisputed material facts pursuant to the Court's Local Rules, and the Court has reviewed the statements, including the references to supporting evidence. As required, the Court resolves all genuine disputes of material fact in favor of the non-moving party and disregards those factual assertions that are immaterial. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Applying this standard, this Court concludes that the following narrative represents the facts for purposes of resolving Defendants’ Motion.
Plaintiff was an experienced hunter who purchased the 2015 model Silent Adrenaline XSCT X-Stand Treestand (the "Silent Adrenaline" or the "treestand") to use for hunting in May of 2015. (Pl.’s Resp. at 1, ECF No. 38.) Defendant Alliance Outdoor Products, Inc. sold the treestand and Defendant Alliance Outdoor Group, Inc. was involved in the manufacturing and distribution of the product.1
A treestand is a device designed to allow a hunter to ascend a tree and position themselves above and nearer to the game pursued. A climbing treestand, such as the Silent Adrenaline at issue in this case, is designed to aid the hunter in climbing up the tree. (Silent Adrenaline Manual at 9–11, ECF No. 34-1.) The Silent Adrenaline is equipped with an entire climbing system, which includes the climbing seat, climbing platform, and a full body harness. (Id. at 4.) To connect the climbing seat and platform to the tree, the hunter must wrap the provided cable around the tree and secure it into the seat and platform using bolts and pins. (Id. ) The harness system goes around the hunter's torso, arms, and legs and includes a tether, which the hunter is instructed to attach to the tree at eye level before climbing. (Id. at 10.) According to the Silent Adrenaline instruction manual, users should always wear their safety harness when off the ground. (Id. at 2.) It further states the maximum weight capacity, including the user and his equipment, is 300 pounds. (Id. )
On October 14, 2018, Plaintiff used the Silent Adrenaline to climb a tree and hunt. (Pl.’s Resp. at 2.) While climbing, Plaintiff alleges that he was wearing the safety harness as instructed, however, at 12 feet he reached a large vine and the tether of the safety harness would not move over the vine. (Walker Dep. at 213:14–218:25, ECF No. 34-4.) Plaintiff attempted to remove the vine but was unsuccessful, so he detached his harness from the tree to move it above the vine and "that's the last thing [he] remember[s] until [he] was on the ground." (Id. at 217.) The cable attachment for the upper portion of the Silent Adrenaline separated and broke "at the point where the cable system merges with the aluminum arm of the seat ...."2 As a result of the fall, Plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries.
Plaintiff filed this action on October 2, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that the treestand in question had design defects that rendered it unsafe for its typical use. Specifically, he alleges the cable assembly that broke was defective and Defendants failed to warn him of the dangers associated with the use of the cables and the length of time that these cables could safely remain in use. (Compl. at 4, 8.) Additionally, Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of implied warranties and the express warranty that the Silent Adrenaline could support weight up to 300 pounds. (Id. at 6–7.) In the Motion, Defendants allege Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, thus, his negligence claims for defective design (Count 1) and failure to warn (Count Four) should be barred. They further allege that Plaintiff's implied warranty claim (Count 2) and express warranty claim (Count 3) should be barred because Defendants disclaimed all implied warranties and limited the express warranties to a 12-month period. Finally, Defendants allege that Summary Judgment should be granted as to all of Plaintiff's claims because the Silent Adrenaline was tested and certified under industry standards, therefore, it was safe for its intended use. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion will be denied as to Counts One and Four and granted as to Counts Two and Three.
Defendants first allege that Plaintiff's two negligence claims, Count One and Count Four, are barred because Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. A contributory negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial