Helminger v. U-Haul Co of KY Inc ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31297
Summary Calendar
DENNIS HELMINGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
U-HAUL COMPANY OF KENTUCKY, INC; ET AL,
Defendants,
REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY;
U-HAUL COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, INC; U-HAUL COMPANY OF NEVADA, INC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
(97-CV-856-F)
July 11, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dennis Helminger appeals the summary judgment for defendants
in this personal injury case. We affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
On January 8, 1997, Helminger rented a truck from a U-Haul
dealer in Las Vegas, Nevada to move his personal belongings from
Las Vegas to New Orleans, Louisiana. On January 12, 1997, cold
temperatures caused sleet to accumulate on the windshield of the U-
Haul truck. Helminger attempted to clear the ice by operating the
windshield washer and wipers. When that plan failed, he stopped at
a convenience store and purchased de-icing fluid which he poured
directly onto the windshield. He continued his trip.
Approximately thirty minutes later, the windshield again became
obscured with ice. Helminger pulled onto the shoulder of I-10
outside of Ozier, Texas to apply more de-icing fluid to the
windshield. As he was getting out of the vehicle, he fell. The
truck, parked on an icy incline, slid forward and crushed his legs.
Helminger brought a diversity action in Louisiana federal
court against U-Haul of Tennessee, Inc., U-Haul of Nevada, Inc. and
Republic Western Insurance Company (collectively “U-Haul”) alleging
that the truck’s windshield washer/wiper system was defective and
improperly maintained and that the plaintiff was not properly
advised how to operate the vehicle. The defendants moved for
summary judgment asserting that there was no evidence to support
Helminger’s claim that the defective windshield washer/wiper system
was the legal cause of his injuries.
The district court, applying Louisiana’s choice of law rules,
determined that Louisiana negligence law applied to this suit.
Based on undisputed facts in the record, the district court agreed
2
with U-Haul that the allegedly defective windshield washer/wiper
was not the legal cause of Helminger’s injuries and granted summary
judgment for defendants.
Assuming, without deciding, that Helminger is correct that
Nevada rather than Louisiana law applies, we must nevertheless
affirm the summary judgment. Under Nevada tort law, Helminger must
prove that the defect in the truck was a substantial factor in
causing the injury. See Price v. Blaine Kern Artista, Inc., 893
P.2d 367, 370 (Nev. 1995). The Nevada Supreme Court goes on to
explain that in answering the “substantial factor” question we must
focus on the foreseeability of the kind and degree of the harm the
plaintiff claims was caused by the defect. See id.On the undisputed record, it was not foreseeable that the
truck’s worn wiper blades and inoperable washer mechanism would be
a factor in Helminger falling under the truck and being crushed as
the truck slid down an ice covered incline. We therefore affirm
the district court’s summary judgment for defendants.
AFFIRMED.
3