Markel v. Douglas Technologies Group, Inc., No. 19-2637 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After plaintiff was injured after being thrown from his ATV when its right wheel came off, he filed suit against DTG, the manufacturer of the wheel, seeking redress for his injuries. The complaint alleged causes of action for product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, and post-sale failure to warn. The first three claims merge by operation of law under Minnesota's single product-liability theory. Plaintiff has abandoned his post-sale failure-to-warn claim by not including any argument on the issue in his brief.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DTG on the product-liability claim where plaintiff's expert specifically disclaims an opinion as to whether the subject wheel had a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DTG on the failure-to-warn claim where the summary judgment record is completely devoid of evidence that an inadequate warning caused plaintiff's injuries.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. Under Minnesota law, plaintiff's claim that the wheels on his ATV racer were defective fails for lack of expert evidence that the wheel had a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous; with respect to plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim, the summary-judgment record is completely devoid of any evidence that an inadequate warning caused plaintiff's injury; without evidence to support the claim's necessary elements, the district court correctly granted defendant summary judgment.
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.