KOKEN V. BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC. 426 F.3d 39 (2005) CASE BRIEF

KOKEN V. BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.

426 F.3d 39 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. ('Auburn') manufactured the fire blanket and appellee Inpro, Inc. ('Inpro') distributed it. The blanket caused a fire and the subsequent damage to a generator. Koken (P) and others sued Black (D), Auburn, and Inpro, under product liability and breach of warranty. Ps contend inadequate warnings accompanied the blanket; and that the blanket was unfit for its ordinary purpose. The district court granted summary judgment on the product liability issues in favor of Auburn and Inpro. P appealed.

FACTS: A welder with 26 years of experience, was torch-cutting a steel lifting lug while poised on a ladder standing on a plywood platform above the generator. A fire watch was present. The plywood platform was covered by a fire blanket. Pieces of molten slag fell onto the fire blanket covering the plywood platform. The molten slag burned through and melted the fire blanket. A fire was started. The fire was put out but the corrosive chemicals discharged from the fire extinguisher damaged the generator beneath the plywood. The project was owned by Androscoggin Energy LLC ('Androscoggin') and insured by Reliance Insurance Company (P). Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. (D) was the general contractor. Appellees. The damage to the generator caused an estimated $9 million in repair and delay costs. This incident led to the claims and cross-claims. Ps assert product liability and breach of warranty claims against Auburn and Inpro. Auburn and Inpro assert a variety of defenses, and cross-claim against each other and Redco and O'Connor for contribution. Auburn and Inpro moved for summary judgment on the issues of duty and proximate causation, and on the breach of warranty claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Auburn and Inpro on each of the issues of duty, breach and causation. The district court also granted summary judgment on the breach of warranty claim because 'the evidence demonstrates that the blanket performed as expected.' Ps appealed. This brief deals only with the breach of warranty claim.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner