holding that where additional discovery sought in a products-liability case addressed product’s defects and for purposes of summary judgment district court assumed all defects alleged, additional discovery would not have aided district court in causation determination
How later courts described this case
- holding that where additional discovery sought in a products-liability case addressed product’s defects and for purposes of summary judgment district court assumed all defects alleged, additional discovery would not have aided district court in causation determination
- even assuming pool was defective, summary judgment properly entered for the defendants when the plaintiffs ignorance of his own awareness of the risk of danger of diving into shallow end of pool was the proximate cause of injuries sustained as result of striking head on pool bottom
- summary judgment granted before completion of discovery was not premature where additional discovery would have neither aided the district court in determining whether material fact issues existed nor changed the result of the summary judgment motion
- “a warning would not have deterred [plaintiff] from diving since a warning would have merely informed him of risks of which he was already aware.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
If, as appellant’s expert asserts, the manufacturers and installers of swimming pools are in possession of empirical data establishing that diving into the shallow end of pools is substantially more dangerous than is generally known, the sale of such instruments without appropriate warnings would justify imposition of liability upon the possessors of the special knowledge.
Paraplegia and quadraplegia are common injuries to persons laboring under the misapprehension that “flat diving” is reasonably safe in the shallow end of a backyard pool. An appropriate description to be applied to an enterprise fostering such tragedy in seeking profit was used by a federal judge of this district; it is “corporate irresponsibility at its meanest.” This case should not be decided on summary judgment.