Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 13 / 04-1544 Filed July 21, 2006 JAMES PARISH II, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of JAMES PARISH III, a Minor Child, Appellant, vs. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Defendant, JUMPKING, INC., Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Thomas L. Koehler, Judge.

Appeal by plaintiff from summary judgment in favor of manufacturer in product liability case. AFFIRMED.

Martin A. Diaz, Iowa City, for appellant.

Michael D. Ensley of Hanson, Bjork & Russell, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.

2 LARSON, Justice. James Parish was severely injured while using a trampoline manufactured by the defendant, Jumpking, Inc. Parish sued Jumpking on theories of defective design of the trampoline and negligence in failing to warn of the danger in using it. The defendant moved for summary

judgment, which was granted, and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings. In June of 1999, Delbert Parish (the plaintiff's brother) and Shelley Tatro purchased a Jumpking fourteen-foot trampoline for use in their backyard. They set up the trampoline, and Delbert tried it out by He nearly fell off the trampoline, prompting

attempting a somersault.

Delbert and Shelley to purchase a "fun ring"--a netlike enclosure with one entry point onto the trampoline. While the plaintiff was visiting his brother on September 11, 1999, he attempted to do a back somersault on the trampoline, but he landed on his head and was rendered a quadriplegic. In August 2001 Parish filed suit, on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son, against Jumpking, as designer and manufacturer of the trampoline and its enclosure. 1 II. The Issues. The district court entered summary judgment against the plaintiff on all claims, and he argues on appeal that this was error because there were genuine issues of material fact on his design-defect claim and on the adequacy of Jumpking's warnings. He also contends that the "open and
alleges that ICON and Jumpking are affiliated in business with the design, manufacture, advertising, sale, and distribution of trampolines under the name of Jumpking and enclosures under the name of "Fun Ring." Jumpking denies that ICON is in the business of manufacturing or designing trampolines and states that ICON was not involved in the manufacture or design of the trampoline or trampoline enclosure involved in the present incident. In view of our disposition of the case, we need not determine the extent of ICON's involvement. Parish also sued Delbert Parish and Shelley Tatro, but those claims were dismissed prior to the summary judgment.
1Parish

3 obvious" defense is not applicable to a design-defect case, and in any event, there was an issue of material fact as to its application here. 2 III. Principles of Review. We review the granting of a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Crippen v. City of Cedar Rapids, 618 N.W.2d 562, 565 (Iowa 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the burden of showing the lack of a genuine issue is on the moving party. Fischer v. Unipac Serv. Corp., 519 N.W.2d 793, 796 (Iowa 1994). A fact is material if it will affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable law. Id. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable finder of fact could return a verdict or decision for the nonmoving party. Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fischer, 519 N.W.2d at 796. If the moving party can show that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support a determinative element of that party's claim, the moving party will prevail in summary judgment. The nonmoving party in a summary judgment motion "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings." Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(5). In a nutshell, the summary judgment procedure does not

contemplate that a district court may try issues of fact, but must determine only whether there are issues to be tried.

2The plaintiff states in a footnote that, although he argues design defect, the facts alleged would fit manufacturing defect as well and that he merely describes them collectively as a design defect "without waiving the manufacturing defect claim." Design and manufacturing defects are, of course, significantly different, and the plaintiff argues only the design-defect ground of liability. He has, therefore, waived any argument concerning a manufacturing defect. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c) ("Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed [a] waiver of that issue.").

4 IV. The Defective Design Claim. In Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2002), we adopted sections 1 and 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability [hereinafter Restatement]. Section 2 of the Restatement recognizes three types of product defect: A product is defective when, at the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, or is defective because of inadequate instructions or warnings. A product: .... (b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe[.] The plaintiff's first argument is that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his design-defect claim under section 2(b). Under a design-defect claim, a plaintiff is essentially arguing that, even though the product meets the manufacturer's design specifications, the specifications themselves create unreasonable risks. To succeed under section 2(b), a plaintiff must ordinarily show the existence of a reasonable alternative design, Wright, 652 N.W.2d at 169, and that this design would, at a reasonable cost, have reduced the foreseeabilty of harm posed by the product. Restatement

Download JAMES PARISH II, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of JAMES PARISH III,

Iowa Law