Patch v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed an $850,000 jury verdict against Hillerich & Bradsby Co. in a strict products liability action arising from the death of Brandon Patch after he was struck by a batted ball hit with the company's CB-13 aluminum baseball bat. The court held that bystanders or other players may pursue failure-to-warn claims, that causation could be established under a flexible standard of proof, and that the assumption-of-risk defense was properly excluded. The court also upheld the jury instructions and denied the request for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Under Montana strict-products-liability law, a person exposed to the risks of a product may bring a failure-to-warn claim even if that person did not purchase or physically hold the product. In the context of baseball, all players, including Brandon, were users or consumers placed at risk by the bat's increased exit speed.
2. Summary judgment was properly denied because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning the scope and feasibility of an adequate warning, and the workability of providing warnings to persons foreseeably exposed to the product's risks was a jury question.
3. The district court properly denied judgment as a matter of law because Montana applies a flexible standard of proof in products-liability cases, and a plaintiff need not rely exclusively on direct testimony that a warning would have altered the decedent's conduct. The jury could infer that a warning would have been heeded where the victim was deceased and the consequences were severe.
4. The assumption-of-risk defense was properly excluded because it does not apply as a matter of law without evidence that the victim subjectively knew he would suffer serious injury or death, knew of the specific danger, and voluntarily exposed himself to it.
5. The jury instructions correctly stated the applicable law, and any inconsistency between the instruction referring to a bystander and the verdict form referring to an ordinary user was harmless because Hillerich & Bradsby failed to show prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim on the ground that Brandon, a bystander or nonpurchasing player, could assert the claim.
2. Whether the district court properly denied Hillerich & Bradsby's Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law where the plaintiffs relied on flexible proof of causation and an inference that Brandon would have heeded a warning.
3. Whether the district court properly excluded Hillerich & Bradsby's assumption-of-risk defense.
4. Whether the jury instructions correctly stated Montana law and whether any inconsistency between the instructions and verdict form prejudiced Hillerich & Bradsby.
5. Whether the verdict should be set aside and a new trial granted.

Disposition

affirmed