Powers v. Taser International, Inc.

174 P.3d 777 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D manufactures and sells the M-26, which employs electro-muscular disruption (EMD) technology to stimulate a person's motor nerves, causing an involuntary muscle contraction. Earlier electric weapon devices affected only the sensory nervous system and relied primarily on pain compliance, which can be overcome by the recipient through focus or when he or she is under the effects of drugs or alcohol. The M-26, is designed to affect the sensory and motor nervous systems, overriding the central nervous system and causing uncontrollable muscle contractions that make it physically impossible for a person exposed to the M-26 to not respond to its effects. P was a sixteen-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office participated in a training and certification course offered that was a prerequisite to being certified to carry the M-26. During the course, P received training materials prepared by D and viewed a PowerPoint Presentation regarding the M-26. The M-26 was described as a 'less-lethal' weapon. The M-26 had been (1) tested on animals and found to have no effect on heart rhythms and (2) deployed on more than 3000 persons with no long-term effects. Short-term injuries could result from a fall associated with exposure to the M-26, noting that the most significant injuries to date had been 'cuts, bruises, and abrasions.' P viewed several videos showing individuals being exposed to the M-26. As a prerequisite for certification to carry the M-26, P was required to be exposed to the electrical force of the M-26. As a result of his exposure to the M-26, P allegedly suffered a compression fracture of his T-7 spinal disc. While being treated it was discovered that P had severe osteoporosis. P was unable to continue to work as a deputy sheriff and resigned. P sued D alleging that the M-26 was unreasonably dangerous and defective because it lacked adequate instructions and warnings. D argued at trial that because it did not know that the muscle contractions produced by the M-26 were strong enough to cause a fracture, it was not required to warn P about such a danger. D got the verdict. P appealed.