The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Sixth Circuit Restores Hunter’s Suit Over Faulty Tree Stand Straps

Posted on September 23, 2015 by Larry Bodine

tree stand hunterThe Sixth Circuit revived a product liability suit filed by a hunter who fell 25 feet after his tree stand straps broke.

Bradley purchased the straps, manufactured by Ameristep, to secure a tree stand he owned. The straps were exposed to the elements for several months before Bradley removed them. In 2011, Bradley reinstalled the stand and straps; he visually inspected the straps and climbed into his stand.

After a few minutes in the stand, the straps broke and Bradley fell 25 feet to the ground breaking both ankles and dislocating his arm. The injuries prevented him from returning to work as a train conductor.

King Bradley, Jr. and his wife filed suit against Ameristep and the distributor Primal Vantage Point Co. On appeal, Bradley challenged three of the district court’s rulings:

  • Refusal to qualify Charles Powell as a products liability expert witness.
  • Refusal to apply the Tennessee consumer expectation test.
  • Dismissal of the failure to warn and loss of consortium claims.

 

Expert Witness Qualifications

The district court disqualified Charles Powell as an expert witness because he made specific references to his experience in the production of metals versus the polymer material used to make the straps.

Powell would have testified that Ameristep failed to include an inhibitor that would have reduced the degradation of the straps while exposed to the elements. He also believed the defendants failed to warn consumers how to recognize whether the straps were safe for use.

Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, the appeals court believed that Powell’s credentials clearly showed his experience in materials failure analysis. Powell had extensive experience in analyzing the causes for polymer strap failures in “load bearing applications.”

Given Powell’s professional, academic and agency experience the appeals court concluded there was an abuse of discretion to exclude Powell’s testimony.

Consumer Expectation Test

The appeals court also reversed the product defects claim due the court finding that the expert witness testimony should have been included.

The district court had dismissed the products liability claim because it believed there was no sufficient evidence to support it.

Also see: 11th Circuit Stifles Physican Discussion of Gun Safety

Expert testimony is key in establishing causation in a products liability suit.  Additionally, under Tennessee law the plaintiff is entitled to use the consumer expectation test.  The test allows the “plaintiff to prove the product did not conform to safety standards expected by an ordinary consumer.”

A plaintiff is required to provide evidence of the objective conditions, to allow the jury to interpret whether ordinary safety expectations were met.

The defense disagreed with the plaintiff’s use of the test, stating the ordinary consumer would not understand the chemical composition of the straps and the rate of deterioration.

The court ruled although consumers may not understand the specifics, it was reasonable to believe consumers had enough experience to have some expectation of the lifespan of tie-downs, straps, or webbing even when exposed to various weather conditions.

The court said there was no question that the straps – a simple device – was the proximate cause of Bradley’s injuries.

Failure to Warn Claim

Tennessee law requires manufacturers to warn consumers of non-obvious dangers caused by its products.  Generally, if the consumer was already aware of the danger, the manufacturer is off the hook because the failure to warn can not be the proximate cause of the injury.

Bradley testified that he was aware that it was better not to expose the straps to the elements for long periods and regularly examined them. However, the plaintiff argued the instructions provided by Ameristep were vague and had multiple interpretations.

The court held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to describe an adequate alternate warning for the straps but present the question to the jury whether the warnings were adequate for a reasonable consumer.

This case is King Bradley Jr. et al v. Ameristep et al., case number 14-6087, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

11th Circuit Stifles Physician Discussion of Gun Safety

 

 

 

 

Posted in Blog, Personal Injury, Product Liability

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel Ordered to Pay a $2.2B Settlement in Patent Infringement Case

Intel was told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent-infringement trial over technology related to chip-making.Intel inf[Read More...]
What is Sexual Harassment?

What is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual Harassment Defined: Legally, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the [Read More...]
Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

Facebook Pays $650M to Settle a Privacy Dispute

WASHINGTON: A US federal judge has given final approval to Facebook's US$650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute betw[Read More...]
Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical Giant Johnson & Johnson is Preparing $3.9B for Talc Settlements

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has set aside $3.9 billion for talc-related litigation, according to a regulatory [Read More...]
Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Alaska Airlines Will Pay $3.19M Following the Death of a Passenger

Seattle-based Alaska Airlines has been ordered to pay more than $3 million to the family of a passenger of reduced mobility w[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.