Valencia

Valencia v. Crane Co.

Good Law
132 F. App'x 171
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 20, 2005No. 03-36053; D.C. No. CV-02-01290-DCACalifornia690 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

In this products liability action, Elodia Valencia appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Crane Co. (“Crane”), the manufacturer of a hot chocolate vending machine, and Compass Group U.S.A., Inc., doing business as Imperial Vending Group (“Imperial”), the owner of the machine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Valencia, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the relevant substantive law is the Washington Products Liability Act (WPLA), Revised Code of Washington §§ 7.72.010-.070. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity actions).

The WPLA requires a plaintiff to prove that (1) a product was not “reasonably safe” because of design or because of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.