PICKARD v. SEARS ROEBUCK

Factual and Procedural Background

Robert Pickard severed his finger while using a miter saw. He and his wife, Jane Doe Pickard, filed a diversity action against Sears Roebuck Company and other defendants, alleging design and construction defects in the miter saw under the Washington Product Liability Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.010 et seq.. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sears and awarded attorney fees as a sanction against the Pickards' counsel. The Pickards appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the sanction.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Sears on the product liability claim under the Washington Product Liability Act.

Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees as a sanction against the Pickards' counsel related to discovery conduct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Robert Pickard argued that the miter saw had design and construction defects that caused his injury, supporting his product liability claim under state law.

The Pickards contended that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees as a sanction against their counsel for his conduct during the attempted deposition of Jane Doe Pickard.

Appellees' Arguments

Sears maintained that the alleged defects did not proximately cause Pickard’s injury, justifying summary judgment in their favor.

Sears justified the sanction against the Pickards' counsel based on his improper response to discovery requests, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Fabrique v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 144 Wash.App. 675, 183 P.3d 1118 (2008)	Requirement that a plaintiff must show proximate cause between the alleged defect and injury in a product liability claim.	The court cited this precedent to support its conclusion that Pickard failed to establish proximate cause, warranting summary judgment for Sears.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37	Authority to impose sanctions for discovery abuses.	The court upheld the district court’s sanction against Pickards’ counsel based on his conduct during the attempted deposition of Jane Doe Pickard.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Fabrique v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 144 Wash.App. 675, 183 P.3d 1118 (2008)

Requirement that a plaintiff must show proximate cause between the alleged defect and injury in a product liability claim.

The court cited this precedent to support its conclusion that Pickard failed to establish proximate cause, warranting summary judgment for Sears.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

Authority to impose sanctions for discovery abuses.

The court upheld the district court’s sanction against Pickards’ counsel based on his conduct during the attempted deposition of Jane Doe Pickard.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether Pickard had demonstrated that the alleged design and construction defects in the miter saw proximately caused his injury, a necessary element under the Washington Product Liability Act. Citing Fabrique v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., the court found that Pickard failed to meet this burden, justifying summary judgment for Sears. Regarding the sanction against Pickards' counsel, the court reviewed the district court’s exercise of discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and concluded there was no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney fees based on counsel’s conduct during discovery, specifically related to the attempted deposition of Jane Doe Pickard.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED.

The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears, effectively dismissing the Pickards’ product liability claims for failure to establish proximate cause. Additionally, the court upheld the sanction awarding attorney fees against the Pickards' counsel, reinforcing the district court’s authority to manage discovery abuses. This decision resolves the dispute between the parties without establishing new precedent beyond the application of existing legal standards.

Robert PICKARD; Jane Doe Pickard, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS ROEBUCK COMPANY, a New York corporation, doing business in the State of Washington; Ryobrt Technologies Toty, d/b/a Chang Type Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Robert Pickard, and his wife "Jane Doe" Pickard, appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in their diversity action against Sears Roebuck Company and others. After Pickard severed his finger while using a miter saw, Pickard brought a claim under the Washington Product Liability Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.010, et. seq. based on alleged design and construction defects in the miter saw. Pickard also alleges that the district court erred when it awarded Sears attorney fees as a sanction against the Pickards' counsel.

The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Sears on the product liability claim. Pickard failed to show that the alleged defects in the product proximately caused Pickard's injury. See Fabrique v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 144 Wash.App. 675, 183 P.3d 1118, 1121 (2008).

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it sanctioned the Pickards' counsel based on his actions in response to Sears' attempt to depose "Jane Doe" Pickard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.