Adams et al v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, No. 3:2022cv00460 - Document 68 (S.D.W. Va. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 55 COMBINED MOTION & Memorandum in Support to Continue Pending Decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court in Response to a Certified Question from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Regarding Desi gn Defect Law in West Virginia; staying this matter pending the outcome of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' decision in Shears v. Ethicon, No. 23-192 (W. Va. 2023); directing the parties to share a copy of the Supreme Court of Appeals ' decision in Shears within seven days of its issuance; denying without prejudice Defendant's 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' 37 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Ellen Wright, Plaintiffs' 47 COMBINED MOT ION to Exclude Dr. Ellen Wright from Referencing Peer Review, Defendant's 39 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Kassekert, Plaintiffs' 48 COMBINED MOTION & Memorandum in Support to Exclude References to Comparative Fault on the Part of the Injured Plaintiff & References to Prior Injuries, and Defendant's 46 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Future Medical Damages; the Court will set a deadline to refile these motions after the parties share the Supreme Court of Appeals' decision in Shears. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 3/6/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams et al v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION JASON ADAMS and DONETTA ADAMS, his wife, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-0460 v. LITTLE GIANT LADDER SYSTEMS, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Combined Motion & Memorandum in Support to Continue Pending Decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Response to a Certified Question from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Regarding Design Defect Law in West Virginia (“Pls.’ Mot.”). See ECF No. 55. Upon review, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 BACKGROUND This is a products liability case. On November 10, 2021, Jason Adams fell from a ladder when a rung of the ladder failed. See Compl. ¶ 6. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC designed and manufactured the ladder. See id. ¶ 4–5. Adams sued. In Count II, Adams asserts a design defect claim. See id. ¶¶ 14–15. He alleges the ladder “was inherently dangerous, defective, and unsafe” because a plastic cap “concealed” weak welding. Id. ¶ 15. As such, an “ordinary consumer” could not properly inspect the ladder before using it. See id. The Court also considered Defendant Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue (“Def.’s Opp’n”), ECF No. 64, and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue (“Pls.’ Reply), ECF No. 65. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Adams pursued this claim throughout discovery. In his Answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories, Adams explained he inspected the ladder before every climb but could not search for “break[s] on the ladder [] hidden by a plastic cover.” See Pl.’s Reply at 3. Adams suggested the plastic caps be “removable” and Little Giant warn consumers the caps covered welds. See id. When Adams asked Little Giant what purpose the plastic caps played, Little Giant responded the plastic caps “protect the user from the sharp edge of the rung, protect the rung and weld from wear and damage, and for aesthetic purposes.” Id. at 4. David Kassekert—Adams’ proposed expert—spoke to the ladder’s defective design. In his Expert Report, Kassekert suggests Little Giant failed to properly weld the ladder. See Kassekert Expert Report, at 4–5, ECF No. 39-2. Over time, the faulty welding caused a “small fatigue crack.” Id. at 5. Eventually, the crack gave way. See id. The Expert Report twice notes it was “not possible” for Adams to inspect the welding because “it was covered by a plastic cap.” Id. See also id. at 4 (“Because the end of the rung where it was welded to the rail was covered with the red plastic cap, it was not possible for Mr. Adams to have seen the crack develop.”). Kassekert repeated these findings in his deposition. He reiterated the plastic caps “prevent [someone] from looking at the individual welds.” See Kassekert Dep. at 84:2–4, ECF No. 39-1 (describing the caps as his “only real complaint” with the ladder’s design). See also id. at 126:14– 16 (similar); 127:4–9 (similar). Although Kassekert admitted he did not know whether any particular fatigue crack “would have been visible” without plastic caps, he emphasized someone “certainly couldn’t see it with a cap on if there was something visible.” Id. at 126:14–16. STANDARD District courts retain “broad discretion” to stay proceedings to control their own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Still, this discretion is not “without limitation.” -2- Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). The District court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. (citation omitted). Three factors guide the Court’s analysis: (1) the “interests of judicial economy;” (2) “hardship and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed;” and (3) “potential prejudice to the non-moving party.” Tolley v. Monsanto Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 837, 844 (S.D. W. Va. 2008). Stays are appropriate when a controlling court will “issue a decision that may affect the outcome of the pending case.” White v. Ally Fin. Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 451, 461 (S.D. W. Va. 2013). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of persuasion. See Williford, 715 F.2d at 127. ANALYSIS The Court finds a stay is appropriate. On February 20, 2023, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Shears v. Ethicon, No. 23-192 (W. Va. 2023). The Supreme Court of Appeals will decide “whether a plaintiff alleging a West Virginia strict liability design defect claim is required to prove the existence of an alternative, feasible product design” to prevail. Shears v. Ethicon, Inc., 64 F.4th 556, 558 (4th Cir. 2023) (certifying question). If so, the Court of Appeals will also decide whether the alternative, feasible product design must “eliminate the risk of the harm suffered by the plaintiff” or “whether a reduction of that risk is sufficient.” Id. These questions bare directly on this case. Adams asserts a design defect claim in his complaint. See Compl. ¶¶ 14–15. He pursued the claim throughout discovery. See Pls.’ Resp. at 2–5 (summarizing deposition testimony); Pls.’ Reply at 3–4 (summarizing discovery responses). He offers an alternative, feasible design: a ladder without plastic caps covering the welding. See Kassekert Expert Rept. at 4–5; Kassekert Dep. at 125:23–126:3 (suggesting other articulating ladders “use rivets rather than welding” and do not have any plastic caps). Yet his evidence suggests—at best—a ladder without plastic caps would reduce the risk of rung failure. See id. at -3- 126:14–16 (suggesting a capless ladder would reveal some, but not all, fatigue cracks). It does not suggest it would eliminate the risk altogether. As such, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Shears will provide helpful—if not dispositive—guidance. The stay factors reinforce this conclusion. First, to issue at a ruling at this stage risks wasting the parties’ and the Court’s resources. An incorrect determination might result in error in a summary judgment opinion or after an extended jury trial necessitating a prolonged appeal. See Knapp v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2023 3261664, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. May 4, 2023) (echoing similar concerns). Second, denying a stay forces Adams to wade through unchartered waters with no guidance; he risks unknowingly litigating an unmeritorious design defect claim. Finally, a stay does not prejudice Little Giant. Both parties discussed Shears in their summary judgment papers. See Pls.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 15–16, ECF No. 50; Def.’s Reply in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n.1, ECF No. 61. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Shears on February 20, 2023. An opinion should follow soon. All said, Adams and Little Giant both benefit from a brief stay because Shears resolves issues central to Adams’ design defect claim. Cf. M.S. v. Amazon, Inc., 2023 WL 8283642, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 30, 2023) (Chambers, J.) (denying motion to dismiss a design defect claim because Shears is “critical” to the resolution of the plaintiff’s claim). CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court STAYS this matter pending the outcome of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ decision in Shears v. Ethicon, No. 23192 (W. Va. 2023). The Court DIRECTS the parties to share a copy of the Supreme Court of Appeals’ decision in Shears within seven days of its issuance. -4- The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, see ECF No. 41, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Ellen Wright, see ECF No. 37, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Ellen Wright from Referencing Peer Review, see ECF No. 47, Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Kassekert, see ECF No. 39, Plaintiffs’ Combined Motion & Memorandum in Support to Exclude References to Comparative Fault on the Part of the Injured Plaintiff & References to Prior Injuries, see ECF No. 48, and Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Future Medical Damages, see ECF No. 46. The Court will set a deadline to refile these motions after the parties share the Supreme Court of Appeals’ decision in Shears. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: March 6, 2023 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
