Summary
The Vermont Superior Court granted Johnson Community Housing's motion for partial summary judgment in an action arising from a child's fall from an apartment window. The court rejected the plaintiffs' strict product liability claim because the undisputed facts did not establish a defective product that reached the consumer without substantial change or caused injury because of defective design. The court also granted summary judgment on the contract/warranty and consumer fraud claims for reasons stated in an earlier ruling involving a co-defendant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Johnson was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' contract or warranty-of-habitability claims and consumer-fraud claims.
- Whether plaintiffs could establish strict product liability where the alleged defect arose from the installation and maintenance of a window screen and the undisputed facts did not show that the product reached the consumer without substantial change or caused injury because of a defective design.
- Whether plaintiff Peter Cook could recover damages on the contract, warranty, and consumer-fraud claims.
Holdings
- Johnson was entitled to summary judgment on the contract or warranty-of-habitability and consumer-fraud claims for the same reasons the court previously granted Alliance summary judgment on those claims.
- Johnson was entitled to summary judgment to the extent Peter Cook sought damages on the contract, warranty, and consumer-fraud claims.
- Plaintiffs could not establish strict product liability because the undisputed facts did not show that the screen reached the consumer without substantial change or that the window caused injury because of a defective design. The alleged improper installation and maintenance of the window did not constitute strict product liability.
- Because plaintiffs did not respond to Johnson's statement of undisputed material facts, the court treated those facts as undisputed, and plaintiffs could not rely solely on their pleadings to create a genuine issue for trial.
Key quotations
“To establish strict liability in a products liability action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s product (1) is defective; (2) is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer in normal use; (3) reached the consumer without undergoing any substantial change in condition; and (4) caused injury to the consumer because of its defective design.” (at 2)
“In response to a summary judgment motion, a nonmoving party “may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”” (at 3)
Factual background
Plaintiffs' minor daughter fell from a second-floor apartment window in 2019. Plaintiffs alleged that the building owner and manager were liable under theories of strict product liability, breach of contract or warranty of habitability, negligence, and consumer fraud. The window screen was secured with tape along the bottom and screws along the side, and plaintiff Olivia Quad testified that the screen did not properly fit and that the screws did not appear to fit. Plaintiffs did not allege that Johnson represented the screen to be a fall-protection device, that they requested fall-protection devices, or that they notified Johnson of the alleged defects.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued the owner and property manager of their apartment building after their minor daughter fell from a second-floor window in 2019. The court had previously granted co-defendant Alliance's motion for partial summary judgment on the warranty and consumer-fraud claims. Johnson incorporated Alliance's statement of undisputed facts and moved for partial summary judgment; the court granted Johnson's motion and directed the clerk to schedule a pretrial conference and jury draw.