Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miravalle v. One World Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

August 1, 2018

TIMOTHY MIRAVALLE, Plaintiff,
v.
ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a RYOBI and RYOBI POWER TOOLS, and HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.'s (“Home Depot”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff Timothy Miravalle (“Miravalle”) has filed a response in opposition and the issues are fully briefed. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Home Depot's motion to dismiss.

         I. Background

         This action arises out of the injury to Miravalle's left hand and fingers sustained while operating a Ryobi table saw (“Ryobi saw”) designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold by Defendants. (Complaint, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8) The accident occurred when Miravalle operated the Ryobi saw after removing the guard assembly in order to make desired common cuts. (Id. at ¶ 10)

         Miravalle brought claims for strict liability product defect (Count I), strict liability failure to warn (Count II), and product liability, negligent manufacture, design, warn (Count III).

         Home Depot has moved for dismissal under Missouri's Innocent Seller statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.762. The statute has been held to shift liability from a downstream seller to the manufacturer. See Gramex Corp. Green Supply, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 432, 445 (Mo. banc 2002). As required by the statute, Home Depot submitted with its motion an affidavit that avers in pertinent part, “[t]he table saw at issue is a product purchased from One World Technologies, Inc., sent directly to [Home Depot's] receiving facilities, and then directly sold to our customers. Home Depot does not participate in the design of the product or any warnings, alter or modify the product, test the product, or exercise any substantial control over the manufacturing of the product.” (ECF No. 13-1 at ¶ 3, Affidavit of Steve Weihe)

         In response, Miravalle opposes dismissal, arguing that his allegations against Home Depot go beyond its status as a mere seller in the stream of commerce by marketing the Ryobi saw, being the exclusive seller of the Ryobi saw's product brand, designing, manufacturing, distributing and/or selling the Ryobi saw.

         In its reply, Home Depot contends that Miravalle's allegations are nothing more than synonyms of seller or conclusions not supported by the record.

         II. Legal Standard

         Missouri's Innocent Seller statute provides:

1. A defendant may move for dismissal under this section within the time for filing an answer or other responsive pleading unless permitted by the court at a later time for good cause shown. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit which shall be made under oath and shall state that the defendant is aware of no facts or circumstances upon which a verdict might be reached against him, other than his status as a seller in the stream of commerce.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.762.1

         Missouri's Innocent Seller statute provides that “[a] defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce may be dismissed from a products liability claim as provided in this section.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.762.1. The statute further provides that “[t]his section shall apply to any products liability claim in which another defendant, including the manufacturer, is properly before the court and from whom total recovery may be had for plaintiff's claim.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.762.2. Interpreting this statute, the Missouri Supreme Court held that “[t]o the extent that a plaintiff can otherwise obtain ‘total recovery,' all liability of a downstream seller, who would otherwise be jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for damages and subject to contribution from the other defendants, is shifted to upstream defendants, including the manufacturer.” Gramex, 89 S.W.3d at 445.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.