Fritz, et al v. Hausfeld, et al, No. 07-5801 (6th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 08a0280n.06 Filed: May 19, 2008 No. 07-5801 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN W. FRITZ; LORI B. FRITZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CAMPBELL HAUSFELD/SCOTT FETZER COMPANY; BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BEFORE: KENNEDY, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs Stephen and Lori Fritz appeal the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Campbell Hausfeld /Scott Fetzer Company and Briggs & Stratton Corporation. Stephen Fritz sustained injuries while using a Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer gasolinepowered pressure washer equipped with a Briggs & Stratton engine. Plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against defendants, asserting theories of strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and dismissed Fritz s complaint on the ground that plaintiffs failed to produce prima facie evidence of a product defect causally linked to Stephen Fritz s claimed injury. No. 07-5801 Fritz v. Campbell Hausfield After reviewing the record, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, we conclude that issuance of a panel opinion would not serve any jurisprudential purpose. Thus, we affirm the district court s well-reasoned decision for the reasons stated in that court s May 29, 2007, opinion and order. AFFIRMED. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.