Hangxiao Che, et al. v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC, et al.

Che v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC · United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division · March 11, 2026 · No. 3:21-CV-554-CCB-SJF

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana grants Daimler Trucks North America LLC and Daimler Trucks & Buses US Holding, LLC's motion for summary judgment in a products-liability action arising from a tour bus accident. Applying Indiana law, the court holds that DTNA was a component-part manufacturer with no duty to include optional electronic stability control because the final manufacturer, SVO Group, was offered and rejected the feature. The court also grants summary judgment to DTB because plaintiffs presented no evidence of its involvement in producing or selling the chassis.

Holdings

  1. Indiana law governs the action because Indiana had the closer relationship to the sale of the subject chassis and all acts related to that sale occurred in Indiana.
  2. A component-part manufacturer has no duty to include an optional safety feature that was offered to and rejected by the final manufacturer. DTNA established as a matter of law that it was a component-part manufacturer, ESC was offered to SVO, and SVO rejected ESC.
  3. Plaintiffs' minimally developed argument that DTNA breached a duty to warn downstream consumers could not overcome the component-part manufacturer defense after ESC was offered to and rejected by the final manufacturer.
  4. DTB was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs presented no evidence that DTB participated in the production or sale of the subject chassis or that DTNA's conduct could otherwise be imputed to DTB.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Indiana law governed plaintiffs' claims.
  2. Whether DTNA was entitled to summary judgment under Indiana's component-part manufacturer defense because it was a component-part manufacturer, ESC was offered to SVO as the final manufacturer, and SVO rejected ESC.
  3. Whether DTNA could be liable for failing to warn downstream consumers despite SVO's rejection of ESC.
  4. Whether DTB was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs presented no evidence connecting DTB to the production or sale of the chassis or otherwise establishing a basis for imposing DTNA's liability on DTB.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (14)

  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)(followed)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)(followed)
  • Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • United States v. Beavers, 756 F.3d 1044, 1059 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Robin v. Espo Eng'g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016)(subsequent treatment noted)
  • Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…