Norman v. Bodum USA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-50542     Document: 00516425592         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 9, 2022
    No. 21-50542                             Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Sasha Begum Norman, individually and as next friend of minor child S.
    N.; Shane Norman, individually and as next friend of minor child S. N.,
    Plaintiffs—Appellants,
    versus
    Bodum USA, Incorporated,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:19-CV-494
    Before Higginson, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
    Sasha and Shane Norman seek to hold Bodum USA, Inc., responsible
    for an alleged manufacturing defect in one of its French press coffee makers
    (“the Press”) that they claim caused it to malfunction and injure their young
    child. The district court granted summary judgment for Bodum, concluding
    that no reasonable jury could find that the Press deviated from its intended
    design. We disagree. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further
    proceedings.
    Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    I.
    Like most standard French presses, the Press consists of a cylindrical
    glass beaker or carafe equipped with a metal plunger. Ground coffee is placed
    in the carafe and hot water is added. After the coffee brews for several
    minutes, the user presses down on the plunger knob to push the coffee
    grounds toward the bottom of the carafe. To keep the coffee grounds from
    escaping upwards, the plunger has a circular press mechanism surrounded by
    a tightly wound spring coil. The spring coil is enveloped within a protective
    mesh that sits against the interior of the glass carafe.
    In 2018, the Normans allowed their five-year-old child to help them
    prepare the morning coffee, as they had frequently done before. As the child
    pressed down on the plunger knob, the carafe shattered, causing hot coffee
    to erupt and burn 13% of his body. As a result, the child had to undergo
    multiple medical procedures and was left “horribly disfigured and
    permanently scarred.”       Bodum does not challenge that the Normans
    purchased the Press less than two years prior to the incident, brand-new and
    in its original packaging, and never modified or repaired it.
    After the case was removed under diversity jurisdiction, the district
    court granted Bodum’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded
    that the Normans had failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a
    reasonable jury to find that a manufacturing defect exists. We disagree.
    II.
    Our court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
    novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court. Ibarra v. UPS,
    
    695 F.3d 354
    , 355 (5th Cir. 2012). We must view “all the facts and evidence
    in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Smith v. Chrysler Grp.,
    L.L.C., 
    909 F.3d 744
    , 749 (5th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment is improper
    where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
    2
    Case: 21-50542       Document: 00516425592           Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    , 248
    (1986).
    Texas law governs the Normans’ claim. Under Texas law, “[a]
    manufacturing defect exists when a product deviates, in its construction or
    quality, from the specifications or planned output in a manner that renders it
    unreasonably dangerous.” Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 
    135 S.W.3d 598
    , 600
    (Tex. 2004). See also Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 
    204 S.W.3d 797
    ,
    800 (Tex. 2006) (same). A plaintiff “must prove that the product was
    defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer and that the defect was
    a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” 
    Id.
     (quotations omitted). See
    also Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d at 600.
    A manufacturing defect may be established exclusively through
    circumstantial evidence. See Johnson v. Michelin Tire Corp., 
    812 F.2d 200
    ,
    207 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Turner v. Gen. Mtrs. Corp., 
    584 S.W.2d 844
    , 848
    (Tex. 1979)); Ford Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 
    9 S.W.3d 195
    , 199 (Tex. App. 1999).
    But product failure or malfunction, standing alone, does not generally suffice
    to prove a manufacturing defect. Casey v. Toyota Motor Eng’g & Mfg. N. Am.,
    Inc., 
    770 F.3d 322
    , 326 (5th Cir. 2014). Rather, plaintiffs must allege a
    specific deviation from the product’s intended design that allegedly caused
    the injury. 
    Id.
     See also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 
    242 S.W.3d 32
    , 42 (Tex.
    2007).
    This deviation element “serves the essential purpose of distinguishing
    a manufacturing defect from a design defect.” 
    Id.
     See also Cooper Tire &
    Rubber Co., 204 S.W.3d at 808. If there is no deviation from the defendant’s
    intended design, then the design itself is the alleged problem. In that
    situation, plaintiffs must bring a design defect claim, which requires proof of
    an additional “safer alternative design” element. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42
    (citation omitted). In a manufacturing defect case, by contrast, the plaintiff
    3
    Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    must present proof of a manufacturer’s intended design, from which the
    actual product in question deviated as a result of a defect in the
    manufacturing process. Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 
    951 S.W.2d 420
    , 434
    (Tex. 1997); Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 42; Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 
    46 S.W.3d 829
    , 847 (Tex. 2000).
    III.
    In their complaint, the Normans allege that the Press shattered during
    ordinary use, due to a specific manufacturing defect: an end-piece of the
    Press’s metal coil that, instead of being tucked inwards, protruded outwards
    beyond the protective mesh. The Normans claim that this defect permitted
    the sharp, rough-cut end of the metal coil to come into direct contact with
    the glass carafe during ordinary use, likely causing a scratch that, when
    combined with thermal stress from the hot water, caused the carafe to
    shatter. To show that the alleged defect was present when the Press left
    Bodum’s control, the Normans point to French press coil assemblies
    advertised on Bodum’s website that also contain an outwardly protruding
    coil.
    To further support their manufacturing defect claim, the Normans
    offered the following evidence: reports and documents corroborating their
    core theory that it is “Glass 101” that uncut metal should not touch glass;
    Bodum’s instruction and owner’s manuals that came with the French Press,
    along with Bodum’s “ornamental design patent” for the French Press, each
    of which contain illustrations of French presses without protruding coils; and
    testimony from Bodum’s CEO confirming that Bodum recommends
    consumers “use plastic or wooden tool[s] rather than metallic” so as to
    prevent scratching that could lead to fracture, and acknowledging that an
    “unfurled” “steel wire” “could be a manufacturing problem.”
    4
    Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    In addition, the Normans designated A. William Lingnell, an engineer
    with expertise on glass-safety, as their liability expert. Lingnell analyzed the
    remains of the Press, two exemplar French presses of identical make and
    model, and Bodum’s various instruction and owner’s manuals. And he drew
    several key conclusions.
    First, he determined that the protruding coil present in the Press
    deviates from what must be Bodum’s intended design. He explained that the
    purpose of the mesh spring that envelops the metal coil is to keep the coil
    “separated from the glass . . . averting contact between the edge of the coil
    and glass.” This conclusion is consistent with the district court’s finding that
    “the metal mesh is intended to engulf the coil so that the coil does not come
    into contact with the glass.” In support of his conclusion, Lingnell points to
    Bodum’s warnings not to use metal objects within the Press lest they scratch
    the interior. He also explains that “one of the most damaging and well-
    known exposures with respect to glass strength is glass-to-metal contact”—
    and “[t]his is particularly the case if [as here] the contacting metal has
    unpolished rough edges.”
    Second, Lingnell concluded that, based on the fracture observed in the
    subject carafe, “the most probable cause of failure of the glass carafe is
    thermal stress coupled with damage to the inside surface of the glass carafe
    caused by glass-to-metal contact between the wire mesh and/or the rough-
    cut edge of the perimeter spring.”
    And third, Lingnell explained that “the subject product’s
    manufacturing defect, a protruding steel rough-cut of a coil, came into
    5
    Case: 21-50542         Document: 00516425592               Page: 6      Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    contact and damaged the lip of the French Press’ carafe, eventually leading
    to a thermal-stress fracture.”1
    IV.
    The district court found that none of the Normans’ proffered
    evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. As for
    Lingnell’s testimony, the court explained that Lingnell had examined “too
    small a sample” of exemplar French presses “from which to infer that the
    protruding coil was [a defect],” “especially . . . given the fact that, as
    Plaintiffs themselves point out, [some of] the coil assemblies advertised for
    sale on Bodum’s website contain a protruding coil.”
    But there are several problems with the district court’s reasoning. For
    one, Lingnell based his conclusion that the Press contained a manufacturing
    defect on more than just his analysis of the exemplars, including: (1) the
    standard principle that sharp metal edges should never come into contact
    with glass, (2) Bodum’s warnings to this effect, and (3) the appearance of the
    mesh that otherwise engulfs the spring coil and separates it from the glass
    carafe. And even if Lingnell’s conclusion were based on the exemplars alone,
    the district court’s criticism merely bears on the weight and credibility of
    Lingnell’s testimony—which is an issue for trial.
    Relatedly, the district court focused heavily on the fact that several
    coil assemblies advertised on Bodum’s website also contain a protruding coil.
    1
    Bodum filed motions before the district court to exclude Lingnell’s testimony and
    strike his report from the record, but the court never considered these motions on the
    merits. Instead, the district court dismissed them as moot after granting Bodum’s motion
    for summary judgment, and Bodum does not challenge that dismissal on appeal. So the
    question of whether Lingnell’s testimony is proper is not raised on appeal. On remand,
    Bodum is, of course, free to renew its motions to exclude this evidence for the district court
    to consider on the merits.
    6
    Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592          Page: 7     Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    The district court concluded that this is “strong evidence that Bodum does
    not view [the protruding coil] as defective.”
    But an alternative interpretation of Bodum’s website marketing
    materials is also available. The website could demonstrate, as the Normans
    suggest, that Bodum tolerated, rather than intended, the deviation.
    This distinction is critical. In American Tobacco Co., 951 S.W.2d at
    434, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether the pesticide residue
    commonly found in cigarettes, which results from the tobacco fumigation
    process, constitutes a manufacturing defect. The defendant manufacturer
    “conced[ed] that its cigarettes contain pesticide residue,” but argued that no
    manufacturing defect could be established, “because all cigarette
    manufacturers fumigate their tobacco with some type of pesticide, and
    residue inevitably remains after fumigation.” Id. at 433.
    The Texas Supreme Court rejected this argument. It held that a
    tolerated defect—even one that is tolerated and ubiquitous throughout an
    entire industry—is still a defect if it is unintended. Id. at 433–34. As the
    court explained, “[a]lthough pesticide residue may be found in many if not
    all cigarettes,” it still “could be a manufacturing defect” because pesticides
    are “not an ingredient [defendant] intended to incorporate.” Id. at 434.
    After all, if the opposite were true, then manufacturers could avoid
    product liability by merely declining to remedy known defects. As the court
    put it, “[s]imply because certain precautions or improvements . . . are
    universally disregarded by an entire industry does not excuse their
    omission.” Id.
    ***
    All told, the record contains at least the following evidence: (1)
    testimony from the Normans that they purchased their Press in brand-new
    7
    Case: 21-50542      Document: 00516425592           Page: 8   Date Filed: 08/09/2022
    No. 21-50542
    condition and never altered or repaired it; (2) a specific alleged defect
    consisting of a metal coil protruding beyond its mesh enclosure; (3) the
    district court’s finding that “the metal mesh was intended to completely
    engulf the metal coil,” which is corroborated by expert testimony; (4) an
    expert witness who examined the Press, tested it, compared it with two
    exemplars, and opined that the protruding metal coil deviated from the
    Press’s intended design, and caused the glass to fracture and ultimately
    shatter; and (5) the shattering of the Press’s glass carafe allegedly during
    ordinary use, albeit by a five-year-old child.
    Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Normans and
    drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, we find that a genuine issue
    of material fact exists as to whether the Press contained a manufacturing
    defect that caused the Normans’ injury.
    We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
    8