 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Falde v. Bush Brothers & Company9/25/2001
On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we ask two questions:
(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and
(2) whether the district court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990).
Summary judgment is proper if the remaining evidence is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Patton, 538 N.W.2d at 118. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). No genuine issue of material fact exists "where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted). The non-moving party must do more than rest on mere averments. Id. at 71. A genuine issue for trial must be established by "substantial evidence," which pertains to the legal sufficiency in establishing the existence of fact issues and not the quantity of the evidence. Id. at 69-70.
Here, Falde has enough evidence to establish a prima facie case of liability. To establish a prima facie case, Falde must demonstrate that the beans were defective, they were defective when they left the defendants' control, and she was injured by them. See Worden v. Gangelhoff, 308 Minn. 252, 254-55, 241 N.W.2d 650, 651 (1976) (characterizing proof required to recover for injuries from an unsafe product, regardless of whether the cause of action rests upon negligence, warranty, or strict liability); Heller v. Schwan's Sales Enters., Inc., 548 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996) (listing the elements of strict liability for putting salmonella-tainted ice cream into the stream of commerce). The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to Falde, is that she purchased a can of beans, opened it, ate a spoonful, and immediately experienced pain. Just a few hours later, she went to the doctor who informed her that she had suffered a chemical burn inside her mouth. This evidence is sufficient to go forward.
Defendants cited Patton and Hines for the proposition that, absent physical evidence of the defective nature of the product involved, summary judgment is proper because Falde is without direct evidence that her injury was caused by the beans. However, with or without the beans, the testimony of Falde and her doctor sufficiently raises a fact question for the jury.
The parties also raise the issue of the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the negligence claim. Res ipsa loquitur is applicable where (1) the injury would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence (2) the cause of the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendants and (3) the injury was not due to plaintiff's conduct. Warrick v. Giron, 290 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Minn. 1980). Defendants argue that all but the first element cannot be demonstrated by the evidence because it does not eliminate the possibility that the injury was caused by something other than the beans—for example, a contaminated spoon. But Falde need not eliminate with certainty all possible causes of the accident. Holkestad v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 288 Minn. 249, 255, 180 N.W.2d 860, 865 (1970).
It is enough if the circumstantial evidence reasonably eliminates improper handling by others or misuse by the injured party, thus permitting the jury to reasonably infer that it is more probable than not that the [product] was defective. Id.
Defendants argue that Holkestad and its progeny only apply to the limited subset of claims similar to "exploding bottle" cases, where the bu
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|