Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Emslie v. BORG-WARNER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
Citations: 655 F.3d 123; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17743; 2011 WL 3715286Docket: 10-2285
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; August 25, 2011; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
James and Lisa Ann Emslie appeal a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York that granted summary judgment to Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc. and dismissed their case against Recreative Industries, Inc. based on forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs alleged injuries resulting from a defect in the transmission of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) manufactured by Recreative, which was based on a design originally created by Borg-Warner. James Emslie was seriously injured in a 2005 ATV accident in England, attributed to a flaw in the transmission that caused it to jump out of gear. The ATV, sold in 2001, was produced by Recreative, which had acquired the transmission design rights from Borg-Warner in 1975. Borg-Warner had no involvement in the manufacturing process post-acquisition. The case was brought under federal diversity jurisdiction due to the Emslies' Scottish citizenship and the corporate statuses of the defendants as Delaware and New York entities. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, requiring the moving party to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law without material factual disputes. The Emslies' strict liability claim against Borg-Warner contended that the ATV gear was defectively designed. Under New York law, to establish a claim of defective design, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the product was unreasonably unsafe and that the design defect significantly contributed to the injury. The court found no error in the district court’s ruling and affirmed the decision. Liability for unreasonably unsafe design is placed on those best positioned to identify and rectify defects to protect public safety. The district court granted summary judgment to Borg-Warner, reasoning that since December 1975, the company had no involvement with the T20 transmission in question, having no control over its design, manufacture, or sale for over 30 years. Consequently, Borg-Warner was not responsible for discovering or correcting any defects. Plaintiffs argued that the case of Sage should overturn this ruling, where liability was imposed on a manufacturer for a defect in a design used in a replacement part. However, the Sage case did not apply here since Borg-Warner had divested all rights to the design long before the machine that caused the injuries was manufactured, and thus could not have been in a position to address any design flaws. The court affirmed the summary judgment, clarifying that while the transfer of design does not eliminate potential liability, strict liability would not apply in this scenario due to the long interval since the design's sale. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim against Recreative based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, noting that relevant parties and evidence were primarily located in England. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision, affirming the overall judgment and dismissing remaining arguments from the plaintiffs as meritless.