Clairmont, et al. v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-039-17)
1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00505 FRANCIS CLAIRMONT AND GEORGE CLAIRMONT vs. AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY & another1 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT, AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR COMPANY’S, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This action arises out of a January 15, 2011 incident in which the plaintiff, Francis Clairmont (“Clairmont’), tripped and fell while wearing a pair of boots manufactured by defendant Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company (“Amer Sports”). Clairmont’s Complaint against Amer Sports alleges negligence (Count I), defective design (Count II), breach of warranty (Count III), and failure to warn (Count IV) in connection her accident. Clairmont’s husband and co-plaintiff, George Clairmont, also asserts a claim for loss of consortium in the Complaint (Count IX). This matter is before the Court on Amer Sports’ motion for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. For the following reasons, Amer Sports’ motion is ALLOWED. BACKGROUND The following relevant facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in accordance with the dictates of Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. On or about January 15, 2011, Plaintiff Francis Clairmont (“Francis”) was shopping at the Derby Street Shoppes in Hingham. She was wearing a pair of Solomon Gore-tex Contragrip 1 Eastern Mountain Sports, Inc. 2 ankle high hiking boots (“the Boots”) at the time. Amer Sports manufactured the Boots. The Boots have a “speed lacing” design, which includes a rigid J-shaped hook comprised of a curved neck and a fastening tail, through which the laces pass to tie each of the Boots. As Francis exited the store, the lace of the left boot caught on the hook of her right boot. She fell forward as her legs became entangled and was injured. Plaintiffs present no expert testimony on the design of the speed laces, and have adduced no evidence that Amer Sports knew, or had reason to know, of any similar accidents or occurrences caused by the speed laces. Amer Sports contends that manufacturers have used the patented speed lacing design for more than one-hundred years, and that this design is popular on hiking boots, work boots, and ice skates. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also DuPont v. Commissioner of Corr., 448 Mass. 389, 397 (2007). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue and he or she is entitled to judgment. Ng Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Cranney, 436 Mass. […]
Bernier, et al. v. Smitty’s Sports Pub, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-146-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 14-P-1967 Appeals Court NANCY BERNIER, administratrix,[1] & another[2] vs. SMITTY’S SPORTS PUB, INC. No. 14-P-1967. Bristol. December 18, 2015. – October 11, 2016. Present: Cohen, Trainor, & Katzmann, JJ. Negligence, Trespasser, Foreseeability of harm. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 28, 2010. The case was tried before Richard T. Moses, J. John P. Knight for the defendant. Christopher Amrhein for the plaintiffs. TRAINOR, J. The defendant, Smitty’s Sports Pub, Inc. (Smitty’s), appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs that entered following a jury trial of a wrongful death lawsuit of Ronald J. Leger, the plaintiffs’ decedent (decedent), filed by Nancy M. Bernier, administratrix of the estate of Ronald J. Leger, and Cecile M. Leger (plaintiffs). We are asked to determine whether the decedent was a trespasser and, therefore, what duty of care was owed to him by the defendant. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the decedent was a trespasser as a matter of law. Alternatively, the defendant argues that the determination whether the decedent was a trespasser should have been a question of fact that was presented to the jury. We affirm. Background. We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving some facts for later discussion. On March 11, 2010, the decedent, age seventy-four, went into Smitty’s rear entrance. Upon entering Smitty’s, the decedent mistakenly opened a door marked “Employees Only” believing it was the men’s bathroom. Three doors, marked “Gentlemen,” “Ladies,” and “Employees Only,” were all similarly marked, the same color, and close to each other. The “Employees Only” door opened directly onto a concrete staircase which had a drop of over two and one- half feet onto the middle of the staircase. The “Employees Only” door opened inward onto the unlit stairwell. The “Gentlemen’s” and “Ladies’” doors opened outward. The “Employees Only” door was usually locked during business hours but was not locked at the time of the incident. The decedent fell down the steps and died of his injuries two weeks later. The jury found that the defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the property and that this negligence was causally related to the injuries suffered […]
Sports Cars for a Stellar Summer
Sports cars and the people who drive them have taken a bit of a beating in popular culture these last few years. Movie geeks look at a hood scoop and drawl “I live my life a quarter mile at a time” in their deepest Vin Diesel voice. Cynics hear the growl of a high-end exhaust and draw anatomical conclusions about the owner. But all the ribbing doesn’t change one fact: High-performance cars are wicked fun to drive. Big block beast, small block tuner, or high-end euro ride, the power and handling can’t be matched by an efficient Prius or sensible minivan. Here are five local cars for sale that will give you the growl, grip and go that (deep down inside) you really want: 2014 Ford Mustang, $ 26,849: When introduced in the 1960’s, the Ford Mustang changed American car making forever, launching a muscle car revolution that didn’t peter out until the 1980’s. Fast forward to the early years of this century: Ford re-released the Mustang with an updated version of its classic fastback style, launching another round of muscle car interest in the market. The 2014 models are already rolling out to local dealerships. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro, $ 26,849: After Ford successfully restored the Mustang’s classic lines, the car world’s heads whipped in unison toward Chevy, looking for the updated Camaro that was sure to follow. The new-look Camaro made its public bow in the first live-action Transformers movie as…Bumble Bee, an Autobot that heretofore had been a VW Beetle. Confusing, perhaps, but the car dropped jaws. You can get yours at any of several Chevy dealers in the area. 2013 Dodge Challenger, $ 34,860: One of the later retro-styled reboots, the Dodge Challenger is a new favorite among the neo-muscle car set. Who wouldn’t want an updated General Lee in the garage? This striped black model is at Lawless in Woburn. 2009 Porsche Cayman, $ 35,977: No good sports car talk ends without mentioning Porsche. While the 911 remains one of the greatest sports cars of all time, don’t sleep on the Cayman. It’s a smaller roadster with excellent weight balance, giving it a smoother ride to go with its power. Allston Motorsports has an ’09 with 28,532 miles. 2006 Ferrari F430 Spider, $ 159,900: Unless you’re just filthy rich, you aren’t walking into a dealership and buying a brand new Ferrari. The best you could do is fake it, like Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. No, if you’re gonna buy a Ferrari, you’re gonna buy it second hand. Buy hey, don’t beat yourself up; It’s still a Ferrari! This Spider has a mere 5,757 on the odometer. South End […]