Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdamagesliabilityappealmotionsummary judgmentburden of proofsustainedmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffliabilityappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentburden of proofwillsustainedmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Govich v. North American Systems, Inc., 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,936, 1991 -NMSC- 061
View Case »
Bergstrom v. Palmetto Health Alliance, 358 S.C. 388, 596 S.E.2d 42
View Case »
Shuler v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2015 WL 12696186
View Case »
Roitz v. Kidman, 913 P.2d 431
View Case »
Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,263
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Payne v. Gardner, 56 So.3d 229, 2010-2627 (La. 2/18/11)

Facts

The incident occurred on March 9, 2004, when thirteen-year-old Henry Goudeau climbed onto the moving pendulum of an oil well pump and attempted to ride it. His pants became entangled in the machinery, leading to severe injuries. Henry's mother, Robbie Payne, filed a lawsuit against Lufkin Industries, the manufacturer of the pump, claiming that the company should have anticipated that children might attempt to play on the equipment. Lufkin argued that the pump was designed solely for oil extraction and not for recreational use.

Henry's mother, Robbie Payne, subsequently filed suit against the manufacture of the pumping unit, Lufkin, among others. In response, Lufkin filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting it was not liable for Henry's injuries because it did not “anticipate” at the time it designed and manufactured the product in the 1950s that it would be “used” for recreational purposes—“riding”—by persons, including teenagers.

Issue

Did the manufacturer, Lufkin Industries, reasonably anticipate that an ordinary person would use its oil well pump as a ride, thereby rendering it liable for the injuries sustained by Henry Goudeau?

Did the manufacturer, Lufkin Industries, reasonably anticipate that an ordinary person would use its oil well pump as a ride, thereby rendering it liable for the injuries sustained by Henry Goudeau?

Rule

Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), a manufacturer is liable for damages caused by a product that is unreasonably dangerous when used in a reasonably anticipated manner. A 'reasonably anticipated use' is defined as a use that the manufacturer should expect from an ordinary person in similar circumstances.

Under the law governing this action, plaintiff's exclusive remedy against Lufkin sounds in products liability as governed by the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), La.Rev.Stat. 9:2800.1 et seq.

Analysis

The court found that Lufkin Industries had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the oil well pump was manufactured solely for the purpose of extracting oil and not for recreational use. The court emphasized that the definition of 'reasonably anticipated use' does not require the manufacturer to account for every conceivable misuse of its product. Since there was no factual support indicating that riding the pump was a reasonably anticipated use at the time of manufacture, the court concluded that the plaintiff could not meet her burden of proof.

Consequently, because plaintiff failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish she will be able to satisfy her evidentiary burden of proof at trial, La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 966 (C)(2), and because, on the state of the evidence, reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, i.e., riding the pumping unit was not a reasonably anticipated use of the unit at the time it was manufactured, there is no need for a trial on this issue.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and reinstated the District Court's judgment, granting Lufkin's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

Accordingly, we reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstate the judgment of the District Court, granting Lufkin's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

Who won?

Lufkin Industries prevailed in the case because the court determined that riding the oil well pump was not a reasonably anticipated use of the product at the time it was manufactured.

Finding the Court of Appeal erred in reversing summary judgment on the basis there are material issues of fact regarding whether Lufkin Industries, Inc. (“Lufkin”) should have reasonably anticipated an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances would use or handle its pumping unit as a “ride,” we grant this writ to reinstate the District Court's judgment.

You must be