Zeigler v. Fisher-Price, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. C01-3089-PAZ.,C01-3089-PAZ. |
| Citation | 261 F.Supp.2d 1047 |
| Parties | Theresa M. ZEIGLER, individually; and Theresa M. Zeigler, as mother and next friend of Madisen Zeigler, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Stephen F. Avery, Cornwall, Avery, Bjornstad, Scott, Spencer, I A, for plaintiff.
Cheryl Possenti, Goldberg, Segalla LLP, Buffalo, NY, Kevin M. Reynolds, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for defendant.
This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 53), filed April 1, 2003. The motion is supported by a brief (Doc. No. 54), a statement of undisputed facts (Doc. No. 55), and an appendix (Doc. No. 56). On April 17, 2003, the plaintiff filed a resistance to the motion (Doc. No. 62), a brief in support of the resistance (Doc. No. 63), a statement of material facts in support of the resistance (Doc. No. 64), and a response to the defendant's statement of undisputed material facts (Doc. No. 65). On April 24, 2003, the defendants filed a reply brief. (Doc. No. 68) The defendant requested oral argument on the motion, and the court heard oral arguments on May 7, 2003. The court now is prepared to address the issue raised in the defendant's motion.1
The following facts are not in dispute.2 On June 1, 2001, a fire occurred at the plaintiffs residence in Estherville, Iowa, causing the plaintiff approximately $180,000 in property damage. At the time of the fire, a toy vehicle known as a "Power Wheels Barbie Sun Jammer Jeep" was parked in a garage attached to the house. The plaintiff claims a product defect in the toy vehicle caused the fire. The defendant denies there were any defects in the toy vehicle, and further denies any such defect caused the fire.
In this action, the plaintiff is seeking to recover for her property damage, as well as damages for emotional distress. Neither the plaintiff nor her daughter was present in the home when the fire occurred, and neither of them sustained any personal injuries from the fire. Neither the plaintiff nor her daughter saw a physician or obtained any medical, psychological, or psychiatric care as a result of the fire.
In the plaintiffs complaint, she alleges causes of action based on fraudulent concealment and nondisclosure (Count II), the Consumer Product Safety Act (Count III),3 negligence (Count IV), product liability (Count V), negligent design and testing (Count VI), negligent failure to warn (Count VII), and implied warranty (Count VIII). (Doc. No. 1) In its answer, the defendant denies liability on all of the counts alleged in the complaint, and asserts fourteen affirmative defenses. (Doc No. 4) In affirmative defense number 5, the defendant asserts the following:
Plaintiff cannot recover for "mental anguish" (for either herself or her minor daughter), "fear," "apprehension," or "inconvenience" as a result of the circumstances alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff has not alleged facts which would give rise to a claim for bystander emotional distress or the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Iowa law. As a result, this claim fails to state a claim upon which any relief can be granted.
The sole issue raised by the defendant in its motion is whether, under the facts of this case, the plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress under Iowa law.4
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for summary judgment and provides that either party to a lawsuit may move for summary judgment without the need for supporting affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) & (b). Rule 56 further states that summary judgment
shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "A court considering a motion for summary judgment must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, ... and give [the nonmoving party] the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts." Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist, 963 F.Supp. 805, 814 (N.D.Iowa 1997) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)).
The party seeking summary judgment must "`informf ] the district court of the basis for [the] motion and identify[ ] those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue.'" Lockhart, 963 F.Supp. at 814 (quoting Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 395 (8th Cir.1992)); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact is one with a real basis in the record. Lockhart, 963 F.Supp. at 814 n. 3 (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. at 1355-56). Once the moving party has met its initial burden under Rule 56 of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party, "by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56],5 must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Rule 56(e); Lockhart, 963 F.Supp. at 814 (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356).
Addressing the quantum of proof necessary to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, the United States Supreme Court has explained the nonmoving party must produce sufficient evidence to permit "`a reasonable jury [to] return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Lockhart, 963 F.Supp. at 815 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). Furthermore, the Court has held the trial court must dispose of claims unsupported by fact and determine whether a genuine issue exists for trial, rather than "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter." Lockhart, 963 F.Supp. at 815 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. at 1355-56).
The Eighth Circuit recognizes "summary judgment is a drastic remedy and must be exercised with extreme care to prevent taking genuine issues of fact away from juries." Wabun-Inini v. Sessions, 900 F.2d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1990) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). The Eighth Circuit, however, also follows the principle that "summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed `to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. at 2555); Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 396 (8th Cir.1992).
Thus, the trial court must assess whether a nonmovant's response would be sufficient to carry the burden of proof at trial. Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 396 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which it has the burden of proof, then the moving party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex, 411 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53; Woodsmith Publishing Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir.1990). However, if the court can conclude that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant, then summary judgment should not be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1991); Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247.
Keeping these standards in mind, the court now will address the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.
Apart from the independent torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which the plaintiff has not raised in this case,6 the general rule in Iowa is that a plaintiff seeking to recover damages for emotional distress must show (1) intentional, willful, or unlawful conduct by a defendant; or (2) some physical injury to the plaintiff. See Clark v. Estate of Rice ex rel. Rice, 653 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Iowa 2002) (citing Mills v. Guthrie County Rural Elec. Coop. Ass'n, 454 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Iowa 1990)) ( the general rule and discussing exceptions); Niblo v. Parr Mfg., Inc., 445 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 1989) ().
The Iowa courts have carved out some notable exceptions to the general rule. First, Iowa recognizes "bystander liability based on the breach of a duty of care by the defendant not to cause emotional distress to those who witness conduct that causes serious harm to a close relative." Clark, 653 N.W.2d at 170 (citing Barnhill v. Davis, 300 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Iowa 1981)).
Second, Iowa recognizes liability "for direct victims of emotional distress... when the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is such that it supports the imposition of a duty of care on the defendant to avoid causing emotional harm to the plaintiff." Clark, 653 N.W.2d at 171-72 (citing Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Iowa 1990); Niblo, 445 N.W.2d at 354). See Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911, 918 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mut....
To continue reading
Request your trial