Robert Paul Johnson v. Craig Hunt

Eleventh Circuit

Robert Paul Johnson v. Craig Hunt

147 F. App'x 814

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2005

Docket05-10100; D.C. Docket 00-00959-CV-J-20-MCR

StatusUnpublished

This text of 147 F. App'x 814 (Robert Paul Johnson v. Craig Hunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Paul Johnson v. Craig Hunt, 147 F. App'x 814 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Robert Paul Johnson, et al., appeal the judgment of the district court, contending that the district court erred in granting Defendant Koehring Cranes, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. More specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant is hable for the injuries Johnson sustained in a construction accident because Koehring’s crane was designed for use with a non-load-bearing safety latch.

We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs have not presented any genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s crane had any defect that rendered it unreasonably dangerous. Having reviewed the record, we agree that no reasonable jury could find any design defect based on the fact that the spring latch was not load-bearing. Plaintiffs strict liability claim against Defendant was therefore properly dismissed. See Norton v. Snapper Power Equip., 806 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1987). Because failure to prove any design defect is also fatal to a products liability negligence claim, we further agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim also should be dismissed. See Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Avia *815 tion, Inc., 344 F.3d 1136, 1146 (11th Cir.2003); Marzullo v. Crossman Corp., 289 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342 (M.D.Fla.2003). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Robert Paul Johnson, et al., appeal the judgment of the district court, contending that the district court erred in granting Defendant Koehring Cranes, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. More specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant is hable for the injuries Johnson sustained in a construction accident because Koehring’s crane was designed for use with a non-load-bearing safety latch.

We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs have not presented any genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s crane had any defect that rendered it unreasonably dangerous. Having reviewed the record, we agree that no reasonable jury could find any design defect based on the fact that the spring latch was not load-bearing. Plaintiffs strict liability claim against Defendant was therefore properly dismissed. See Norton v. Snapper Power Equip., 806 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1987). Because failure to prove any design defect is also fatal to a products liability negligence claim, we further agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim also should be dismissed. See Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Avia *815 tion, Inc., 344 F.3d 1136, 1146 (11th Cir.2003); Marzullo v. Crossman Corp., 289 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342 (M.D.Fla.2003). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. App'x 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-paul-johnson-v-craig-hunt-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack