Pierce v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

Jennifer Pierce and her husband owned a 2005 Mini Cooper. Pierce alleged that on August 15, 2014, while she was loading a box into the vehicle, its rear hatch suddenly dropped onto her head and caused traumatic brain injuries. She alleged that the gas spring strut supporting the hatch was defectively designed or manufactured because gas leaked from it, causing the strut to fail.

Pierce sued BMW of North America, LLC (BMW NA) and Stabilus, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of the gas strut. Her claims against both defendants included negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and negligent failure to warn. Pierce and Stabilus stipulated to dismissal of Pierce’s claims against Stabilus, leaving BMW NA as the only defendant. BMW NA moved for summary judgment, arguing that BMW AG—not BMW NA—was the manufacturer for purposes of the products-liability claims. BMW NA also argued that the evidence did not support Pierce’s products-liability or failure-to-warn claims.

Negligent Design and Manufacture

Under Minnesota law, with limited exceptions, only a manufacturer may be liable for negligent manufacture or design. The court found that BMW NA was not the manufacturer of the Mini Cooper. Pierce argued that an exception applied because BMW AG allegedly could not be subject to jurisdiction in Minnesota. The court rejected that argument, explaining that BMW AG’s success in challenging personal jurisdiction in another federal court did not establish that it could not be subject to jurisdiction in Minnesota. Pierce had not attempted to join BMW AG in this case, so the court had made no determination about jurisdiction over BMW AG.

Pierce alternatively argued that the defective product was the vehicle’s maintenance schedule, which did not recommend maintenance for the struts. The court rejected that theory because Pierce’s complaint identified the strut itself as the defective product, and she could not create a new claim in her response to the summary-judgment motion. The court also stated that, even if she had pleaded such a claim, a deficient maintenance schedule would not be a product for purposes of a products-liability claim.

The court further noted that Pierce conceded she was not alleging that the gas struts were defectively designed or manufactured. It therefore held that summary judgment was appropriate on her negligent manufacture and design claim.

Failure to Warn

The court explained that Minnesota uses the same standard for negligent and strict-liability failure-to-warn claims. Pierce had to show that BMW NA knew or had reason to know of the product’s danger, that its warnings were inadequate, and that the lack of an adequate warning caused her injuries.

BMW NA argued that the record contained no evidence of another sudden gas-strut failure or evidence that such a failure caused injuries. Pierce again relied on the maintenance schedule and argued that her claim concerned its failure to warn consumers about possible gas-strut failure. The court stated that the maintenance schedule was not the product at issue and, at most, could be evidence of warnings provided by BMW AG. The court found that Pierce presented no evidence that BMW NA knew or should have known about the danger of sudden gas-strut failure, or even that the gas struts were dangerous. Because she had also conceded that the struts were not defective, the court found no genuine issue of material fact on any element of the failure-to-warn claim.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted BMW NA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered.