Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV00331, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00331    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 72

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Date:                    2/2/23 (9:30 AM)                   

Case:                   Anthoney Keller, et al. v. 5.11, Inc. (21STCV00331)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant 5.11, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

All evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

With respect to Issue Nos. 1-3, defendant 5.11, Inc. contends that each of the causes of action fail as to each of the three plaintiffs because the subject medium battering ram was not defectively designed. “[A] product is defective in design either (1) if the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or (2) if, in light of the relevant factors discussed below, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.” (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 418.) In weighing the benefits of the design against the risk of danger, relevant factors include “the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.” (Ibid.)

Defendant submits the declaration of Lars Ingesson, the person who oversaw the design of the subject medium battering ram. (UMF 23, citing Ingesson Decl. ¶ 3.) Ingesson has 25 years of experience as a designer of law enforcement breaching equipment. (UMF 24, citing Ingesson Decl. ¶ 6.) Ingesson also has more than twenty years of experience as a Master Breacher for the Swedish National Police, wherein Ingesson developed techniques, methods, and equipment for breaching doors. (Ingesson Decl. ¶ 6.) Ingesson has sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert in this action.

Ingesson declares that the medium battering ram “was designed in compliance with industry custom and practice in all respects, including, but not limited to the distance between the handles…and the fact that metal handles are welded to the battering ram.” (UMF 25, citing Ingesson Decl. ¶ 7.) Ingesson also contends that he has never received a complaint regarding the subject ram. (Ingesson Decl. ¶ 6.) Ingesson’s declaration is sufficient to demonstrate that the subject ram may not be defectively designed. The burden shifts to plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact regarding a design defect in the subject ram. 

Plaintiffs present the declaration of Vijay Gupta, Ph.D. Dr. Gupta has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in civil engineering. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 3.) Dr. Gupta is a professor of biomedical engineering. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 2.) He has 33 years of experience teaching and has taught and developed courses that cover design of mechanical components, accident reconstruction, and injury biomechanics. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 3.) He has also conducted investigations and performed biomechanical analyses of injures to every part of the human body. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 5.) Dr. Gupta also inspected the subject ram. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 7.) Based on these qualifications, Dr. Gupta is qualified to opine on whether the subject ram was defectively designed.

Dr. Gupta avers that based on a reasonable degree of scientific and engineering probability, the ram was defectively designed and manufactured in such a manner that it caused the plaintiffs to suffer injuries. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 8.) According to Dr. Gupta, if the ram had rotational movement in the handles and if the handles were coated in foam or rubber, as opposed to having welded metal handles, the force transferred to the user’s body would have been reduced. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 10(d), 10(e).) Dr. Gupta also maintains that the handles should be closer together so that upon impact of the ram, the shoulders are less strained and more capable of receiving the impact force. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 10(f).) Had the ram been properly designed and manufactured, plaintiffs purportedly would not have suffered the injuries they sustained. (Gupta Decl. ¶ 9.)

Dr. Gupta also maintains that the lack of warning regarding the risk of shoulder injury is also a defect, considering that there are other designs of rams where the risk of shoulder injury is reduced. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 10(c), 10(g); see DeLeon v. Commercial Manufacturing & Supply Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 336, 343 [“A duty to warn or disclose danger arises when an article is or should be known to be dangerous for its intended use, either inherently or because of defects”].)

Based on Dr. Gupta’s declaration, a reasonable juror could find that the subject ram either failed to perform as safely as an ordinary user could expect or the risk of shoulder injury outweighs the benefits of the design, especially considering that a design whereby the handles are closer together reduces the risk of shoulder injury.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs demonstrate a triable issue as to whether the subject medium battering ram was defectively designed. The motion as to Issue Nos. 1-3 is DENIED.

With respect to Issue Nos. 4-6, defendant contends that each of the cause of action fail as to all three plaintiffs because neither the design nor lack of warning caused plaintiffs’ injuries. “In the context of products liability actions, the plaintiff must prove that the defective products supplied by the defendant were a substantial factor in bringing about his or her injury.” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 968.)

Defendant contends that, although plaintiffs testified their treating physician Dr. Kharrazi attributed their injuries to the subject ram (UMF 26-28), Dr. Kharrazi testified that he has no opinion or knowledge regarding whether the ram caused plaintiffs’ injuries (UMF 29-30). The burden is shifted to plaintiffs to demonstrate a triable issue concerning causation.

As discussed above, Dr. Gupta opines that the lack of mobility and force-absorbing materials on the handles, as well as the distance between the handles, caused plaintiffs their injuries. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10(d), 10(e), 10(f).) Even though Dr. Gupta is not a medical doctor, he has biomechanical expertise concerning the operation of machines and equipment and resulting injuries to various parts of the body. (Gupta Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Dr. Gupta’s expertise is sufficient to allow him to opine on the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries.

Based on Dr. Gupta’s declaration, a reasonable juror could find that the design defects of the subject ram caused plaintiffs’ injuries. The motion as to Issue Nos. 4-6 is DENIED.