AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff underwent a total hip replacement surgery in 2010, where a Zimmer brand dual-modular hip prosthetic device was implanted. Following the surgery, the Plaintiff experienced severe complications, including metallosis, due to the prosthetic shedding excessive metal debris. This condition led to additional surgeries and ongoing health issues for the Plaintiff. The Defendants, Zimmer Inc. and Zimmer Holdings Inc., manufactured and designed the prosthetic device in question.

Procedural History

• Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants on May 9, 2013, for injuries related to the failure of his hip implant (para 2).
• The district court found Defendants strictly liable for a design defect in the prosthetic device after a bench trial in December 2016, dismissing all other claims (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the hip prosthetic designed and manufactured by Defendants was defective due to its design, which caused it to shed excessive metal debris, leading to poisoning and death of the soft tissue in his hip joint. This defect necessitated additional surgeries and ongoing treatment (paras 3-5, 17, 20).
• Defendants: Contended that the district court erred in its findings concerning a design defect and argued that the hip prosthetic is an unavoidably unsafe product for which adequate warnings were given. They sought judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, asserting that the product's risks were known but deemed acceptable given its benefits (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in finding a design defect in the hip prosthetic implanted in the Plaintiff.
• Whether the hip prosthetic is an unavoidably unsafe product, exempting Defendants from strict liability under comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's finding of strict liability for a design defect in the hip prosthetic.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly applied the law of strict liability for design defects. The court found that the prosthetic device, as configured in the Plaintiff, presented an unreasonable risk of metallosis, rendering it defective. The court also noted that Defendants failed to adequately test the prosthetic with its cobalt-chromium head in all possible configurations, which contributed to the device's excessive release of toxic metal debris. Furthermore, the court concluded that Defendants did not preserve their argument that the prosthetic was an unavoidably unsafe product under comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, as they did not seek a ruling on this issue at trial. The court's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony and Defendants' internal data, which demonstrated the prosthetic's increased risk of metallosis compared to other devices and the feasibility of alternative designs that could have mitigated this risk (paras 26-42).