The Product Liability and Mass Tort Monitor is a monthly newsletter delivering critical updates, data insights and actionable strategies for navigating the complexities of product liability and mass tort litigation. This month’s issue explores a recent Tenth Circuit opinion that strengthens manufacturers’ ability to defend against injuries sustained from open and obvious dangers, but also includes a careful warning for manufacturers.
Key Takeaways
- The Tenth Circuit reversed a plaintiff’s trial verdict, holding that the dangers of dismounting a moving tractor were “open and obvious” and therefore required no additional manufacturer warning under a failure to warn theory.
- The court confirmed that whether a danger is “open and obvious” is a legal question that courts may resolve at summary judgment or ahead of jury deliberations.
- While the decision strengthens the open and obvious danger defense, the court left the door open for failure to warn claims in which product innovations — such as AI, automation or internet connectivity — change a product’s operation to the point at which previously obvious dangers may no longer be apparent to users.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Miller v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, provided a stark application of the open and obvious danger defense as asserted in a failure to warn claim. The plaintiff jumped out of his moving tractor to remove an object in the path without first parking the tractor. Rather, he merely slowed the speed, alleging reliance on an auto shut-off feature. The tractor, pulling a seed driller attachment, then ran him over, injuring him. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer failed to warn him of the dangers that led to his accident. Although the plaintiff was successful at trial, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding the alleged dangers “open and obvious” and therefore requiring no additional duty. In finding as much, the court confirmed it is a legal question whether a danger is “open and obvious” and therefore a trial court may rule on the issue in the context of summary judgment or ahead of jury deliberations.
This is an important decision in the ever-evolving consumer marketplace. For instance, the Miller plaintiff argued that CNH had a duty to warn that dismounting a moving tractor could lead to his injuries. In doing so, he invoked caselaw that demonstrates when a product operates differently from other similar products on the market, the manufacturer is required to warn about the unexpected dangers associated with the different operation. Extending that argument, the plaintiff claimed the tractor was different from others he used previously. While the plaintiff was an experienced farmer familiar with tractors, he claimed the subject tractor “was his first sophisticated tractor” and was “designed to be intuitive and do things for operators that they previously had to do for themselves.” He likened it to an upgrade from regular cars to self-driving cars. The court, unconvinced, clarified that regardless of the advanced nature of the tractor, the operation that the plaintiff complained of remained unchanged from the tractors with which he was familiar.
This decision strengthens manufacturers’ ability to defend against injuries sustained from open and obvious dangers, whether warned about or not. However, underlying the Tenth Circuit’s decision is a careful warning for manufacturers to closely track the development and innovation in their products. The tractor manufacturer developed an advanced tractor. But the injury resulted from largely unchanged features retained from older models. The court held the door open for failure to warn claims where product features changed to the point at which the user is unfamiliar with its operation. And so, when manufacturers are incorporating advanced technologies into their products — whether it be employing AI, automating operations or simply connecting devices to the internet — they should be aware of whether the advances they make demand new warnings where a danger may no longer be open and obvious.
For more information on these issues, contact the authors or their colleagues in McGuireWoods’ Product Liability & Mass Tort Practice Group.