Morgen v. Ford Motor Co., 797 N.E.2d 1146 (2003)—Products Liability

Plaintiff was injured while a backseat passenger in a Ford. He brought a product liability claim. Ford asserted product misuse as a defense as he was not wearing a seatbelt. The Supreme Court agreed the failure to wear a seatbelt could be considered product misuse and was for the jury to consider. They also held whether the product misuse was foreseeable to Ford was for a jury to consider.

Kennedy v. Guess, Inc. 806 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. 2004) – Products Liability

This is a products liability case against two corporations involved in the distribution of an allegedly defective designer umbrella.  The plaintiff’s wife purchased a “Guess” watch at a Lazarus store in Indianapolis, and as a gift for purchasing the watch, she received a free umbrella bearing the “Guess” logo.  Subsequently, plaintiff took the umbrella to work, where a co-worker swung the umbrella from the handle.  The umbrella shaft separated from the handle and struck plaintiff in the nose and sinus, causing injury.  Plaintiff filed suit against several corporations, including Guess, Inc. and Callanen International.  Plaintiffs were unable to complete service of process on Interasia Bag, a Hong Kong corporation who manufactured the umbrella.  Callanen and Guess subsequently moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims alleging they were not “manufacturers” of the umbrellas.
 
Under Indiana law, actions for strict liability in tort are restricted to “manufacturers” of defective products.  In response to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued the defendants should considered “domestic distributors” which is an exception imposing liability even though the defendants were not the actual manufacturers of the product. A provision of the Indiana Strict Product Liability Act states:

If a court is unable to hold jurisdiction over a particular manufacturer of a product or a part of a product alleged to be defective, then the manufacturer’s principle distributor or seller over whom a court may hold jurisdiction shall be considered, for the purposes of this chapter, the manufacturer of the product. 

The court recognized the “domestic distributor” exception is the legislature’s attempt to provide a remedy for Indiana consumers who are injured by defective products manufactured by an overseas entity over which Indiana courts have no jurisdiction.  In order to impose liability, however, the defendant must be a “principle distributor or seller.”  The Indiana Supreme Court determined Guess was entitled to summary judgment since it neither ordered nor received the umbrellas at issue, was never in possession of the umbrellas, and did not manufacture, supply, distribute, assemble, design, or sell them.  Rather, since Guess simply licensed its name to Callanen for placement on various products it would not be considered a “domestic distributer.”  On the other hand, the court determined Callanen was not entitled to summary judgment since there was a material question of fact as to whether Callanen was the principle distributor of the product.  Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Guess, Inc., but reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Callanen.