5005 Properties, Inc. d/b/a Hillcrest Bingo, Relator, vs. St. Paul City Council, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C2-97-1496

James Hinze,

Appellant,

vs.

MAN Roland, Inc.,

f/k/a M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation,

a Delaware corporation, et al.,

Respondents,

and

Isringhausen, Inc.,

a Delaware corporation,

defendant and third-party plaintiff,

Respondent,

vs.

Metropolitan Council for Transit Operations,

Third-Party Defendant.

 Filed February 10, 1998

 Affirmed

 Kalitowski, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. PI9517801

Douglas E. Schmidt, Douglas E. Schmidt & Associates, P.A., 900 Midwest Plaza East, Eighth & Marquette, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

John H. Hinderaker, Deborah J. Mackay, Faegre & Benson LLP, 2200 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 (for respondents MAN)

Mark D. Covin, Murnane, Conlin, White & Brandt, P.A., 1800 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Isringhausen)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant James Hinze challenges the granting of summary judgment in favor of respondents Isringhausen, Inc. (Isringhausen), and MAN Roland, Inc., MAN AG, and MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG (collectively "MAN") on appellant's claims of strict products liability, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. Appellant argues the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case. We affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine both whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993); State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990).

To establish a prima facie case for each of his claims, appellant must demonstrate, among other things, that the defect in the manufacturer's product was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained. See Drager by Gutzman v. Aluminum Indus., Corp., 495 N.W.2d 879, 882, 884-85 (Minn. App. 1993) (applying proximate causation analysis to claims of strict products liability, negligence, and failure to warn), review denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 1993); Craft Tool & Die Co. v. Payne, 385 N.W.2d 24, 26 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding causation required for breach of warranty claims).

Appellant here failed to establish that the bus seat was the proximate cause of his injuries. It is undisputed that the seat underwent various repairs of an unknown nature. Appellant's inability to produce the allegedly defective seat makes it impossible to determine the extent and effect of the repairs and possible modifications. Further, appellant's failure to produce the bus seat that allegedly caused his injuries is prejudicial to respondents because respondents cannot conduct investigations into the product to determine if the seat could have caused appellant's injuries or to determine the effect of the seat's subsequent repairs. As the supreme court recently stated:

It must be emphasized that this is not simply a design defect case, where at least one court has suggested that the prejudice to the defendant from spoliation may be less than in a manufacturing defect claim. Instead, there is also undisputed evidence that the claimed defective product had been substantially modified or repaired prior to the accident, the extent to which and the effects of which can no longer be ascertained.

 Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116, 119 (Minn. 1995) (footnote omitted). Thus, under Patton, even if appellant could demonstrate that a design defect existed when the seat left Isringhausen's control, because there were subsequent repairs, his "failure to preserve the evidence eliminates [his] ability to demonstrate that the defect was present at the time" of the accident or caused the injury. Id. at 120.

As this court has stated, without assessing blame or implying any wrongdoing on appellant's behalf, we recognize that appellant must bear the consequences for his inability to produce the seat. Himes v. Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc., 565 N.W.2d 469, 471 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Aug. 26, 1997). Because appellant has not produced the allegedly defective seat in its post-repair condition, he cannot, as a matter of law, make the required showing that the product in question was the proximate and actual cause of his injuries. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of both Isringhausen and MAN.

  Affirmed.