The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s decision in a products liability case involving a hunting safety harness. The case, brought by Charles Aker, alleges that the harness system, manufactured and sold by Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., and Premier Outdoor Equipment, LLC, lacked adequate warnings, leading to his injuries. The Appeals Court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact, meaning the case needs to go back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The Incident and the Lawsuit
The core of the case revolves around a hunting harness system designed to prevent falls from tree stands. Aker was using the harness on his property when he fell and sustained serious injuries. The crux of Aker’s claim is that the harness system was defective because it didn’t have adequate warnings about the dangers of misuse. Specifically, Aker argues that the manufacturers should have warned users against attaching a carabiner (a metal ring with a spring-loaded closure) to the buckle release loop on the tree strap.
Aker’s complaint included claims of both strict products liability and negligence. Strict liability means the manufacturer is liable for a defective product that causes injury, regardless of fault. Negligence, on the other hand, means the manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care in the design or warning of the product, leading to the injury.
The Harness System and the Carabiner
The harness system in question wasn’t designed to be used with a carabiner. The instructions that came with the harness detailed how to connect the harness to the tree strap without a carabiner. However, Aker, who has hunted for over 50 years, used a carabiner to connect the harness tether to the buckle release loop on the tree strap. This loop was not designed to bear weight; it was intended to help release the buckle. During his fall, the loop broke, causing his injuries.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the manufacturers and sellers). Summary judgment is granted when there are no genuine disputes of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The lower court reasoned that Aker’s injuries were not the fault of the defendants, because of several factors. First, the court found that Aker’s misuse of the harness system (using the carabiner) was not reasonably foreseeable. Second, the court determined that Aker’s causal responsibility for the incident was greater than that of the defendants. Finally, the court determined that Aker had substantially changed the product by adding the carabiner.
The Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court’s conclusions, reversing the summary judgment and sending the case back for further proceedings.
Foreseeability: A Key Issue
The Court of Appeals focused on the question of whether Aker’s misuse of the harness system was reasonably foreseeable. The court cited the expert witness report of Robert Sugarman, who stated that it was foreseeable that some users, familiar with carabiner-based systems, might mistakenly connect the tether to the buckle release loop. Sugarman called this “negative transfer,” where a person applies “previously learned behaviors” to a “different, but functionally similar” product. The Court of Appeals agreed that this created a genuine dispute of fact, meaning a jury needs to decide whether Aker’s actions were foreseeable.
The defendants argued that it was not foreseeable that a user would ignore the instructions. The Appeals Court acknowledged this argument but stated that it was not unforeseeable that a user might not read the instructions, or might not pay enough attention to the instructions provided. The court also noted that manufacturers can be held liable if they fail to anticipate that some users may not heed warnings.
Contributory Negligence: A Jury Question
The Court of Appeals also addressed the issue of contributory negligence, which is the degree to which Aker’s own actions contributed to his injuries. The court stated that contributory negligence is generally a question for the jury. While the court acknowledged that there are instances where a court can determine negligence as a matter of law, the court did not find that Aker’s actions were so “unreasonable” or “dangerous” that his negligence exceeded the defendants’ as a matter of law.
Substantial Change: Not Applicable
The Court of Appeals then addressed the issue of whether Aker’s addition of the carabiner constituted a “substantial change” to the product, which is a key element in strict liability cases. The Court of Appeals found that the addition of the carabiner was not a “substantial” and “material” change. The court noted that the purpose of the law is to protect the manufacturer from liability when the dangerously defective aspect of the product was altered or introduced after the product left the manufacturer’s control. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the alleged defect was the lack of a warning on the buckle release loop, and that this aspect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control.
The “Sham Affidavit”
During the proceedings, there was also a dispute about an affidavit submitted by Aker, which the circuit court referred to as a “sham affidavit.” A “sham affidavit” is an affidavit that is submitted to contradict prior deposition testimony. In his affidavit, Aker stated that he had previously owned a Muddy-brand harness system that was designed to be used with a carabiner. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the circuit court’s determination that Aker’s affidavit was a “sham.” The Court of Appeals found that there was no contradiction between Aker’s deposition testimony and his affidavit.
What Happens Next?
The Court of Appeals has sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. This means the case will now proceed with discovery, possibly including additional depositions and expert testimony. The case may go to trial, where a jury will decide whether the harness system was defective because of inadequate warnings, whether Aker’s misuse was foreseeable, and the extent to which Aker’s actions contributed to his injuries.