Joseph Knott v. AMFEC, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

Joseph Knott v. AMFEC, Inc.

471 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2012

Docket11-2508

StatusUnpublished

This text of 471 F. App'x 561 (Joseph Knott v. AMFEC, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Knott v. AMFEC, Inc., 471 F. App'x 561 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A 3,000-pound-capacity meat blender/mixer severed part of Joseph Knott’s *562 hand when, while preparing to wash the blender from atop a platform with the blender running and its safety grate open, Knott slipped and his arm entered the blender. Knott brought suit against AM-FEC, Inc., which purchased the assets of the company that manufactured the blender, arguing that AMFEC had a post-sale duty to warn of the dangers involved in cleaning the blender in the manner attempted by Knott. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to AMFEC on the ground “that the danger posed by cleaning the blender with the safety grate open and the blender in operation was obvious” and that under Minnesota law manufacturers do not have a “duty to warn of a foreseeable danger if the danger would be obvious to anyone using the product.” Knott v. AMFEC, Inc., No. 09-CV-1098, 2010 WL 4116602, at *5 (D.Minn. Oct. 18, 2010); see also Gamradt v. Fed. Labs., Inc., 380 F.3d 416, 419 (8th Cir.2004) (“Under Minnesota law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of reasonably foreseeable dangers. This duty is relieved, however, when the danger the product poses is open and obvious.” (internal citations omitted)). Knott now appeals, and, after de novo review, see id., we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A 3,000-pound-capacity meat blender/mixer severed part of Joseph Knott’s *562 hand when, while preparing to wash the blender from atop a platform with the blender running and its safety grate open, Knott slipped and his arm entered the blender. Knott brought suit against AM-FEC, Inc., which purchased the assets of the company that manufactured the blender, arguing that AMFEC had a post-sale duty to warn of the dangers involved in cleaning the blender in the manner attempted by Knott. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to AMFEC on the ground “that the danger posed by cleaning the blender with the safety grate open and the blender in operation was obvious” and that under Minnesota law manufacturers do not have a “duty to warn of a foreseeable danger if the danger would be obvious to anyone using the product.” Knott v. AMFEC, Inc., No. 09-CV-1098, 2010 WL 4116602, at *5 (D.Minn. Oct. 18, 2010); see also Gamradt v. Fed. Labs., Inc., 380 F.3d 416, 419 (8th Cir.2004) (“Under Minnesota law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn consumers of reasonably foreseeable dangers. This duty is relieved, however, when the danger the product poses is open and obvious.” (internal citations omitted)). Knott now appeals, and, after de novo review, see id., we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-knott-v-amfec-inc-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack