## Facts

- Rodger Nelson Smith, Jr., a cable technician in Texas, used an extension ladder with a hook assembly sold to his employer by Louisville Ladder Corp. to perform a routine overhead cable repair about twenty feet above ground.
- Smith placed the suspended cable strand into U-shaped hooks at the ladder’s top and leaned the ladder against the cable, with the ladder base about five feet from a utility pole.
- Smith climbed without first securing the ladder to the pole; he intended to attach his safety belt at the top and then tie the ladder to the pole using a hand line.
- As he reached for his safety belt at the top, his weight shifted and the ladder slid laterally along the sloped cable.
- Near the line’s low point, a hook disengaged from the cable; the ladder twisted and stopped abruptly, Smith lost his grip, fell, and suffered serious injuries.
- Lateral ladder slides on suspended cables were a recognized risk in the telecommunications industry, and Smith had previously experienced lateral slides without falling when he was already belted in.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Texas law to prove a design defect, including proof of a safer alternative design that would have reduced the risk without impairing utility and that was feasible when the product left the manufacturer.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to show inadequate warnings and that any inadequacy was a producing cause of Smith’s injuries.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (unfitness for ordinary purposes).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Louisville Ladder Corp.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support liability on design defect, failure to warn, or implied warranty.
- On design defect, the court found the proposed safer alternative design was not shown to be safer in the legally required sense and was not adequately developed or supported.
- On failure to warn, the court found the danger was well known in the industry and to Smith, and the proof did not support a finding of legally inadequate warnings or causation.
- On implied warranty, the court concluded the warranty claim failed for the same evidentiary reasons defeating the defect and warning theories.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas design-defect law, a plaintiff must present legally sufficient evidence of a safer alternative design that would reduce the risk of injury without substantially impairing the product’s utility and that was technologically and economically feasible when the product left the manufacturer.
- Expert proposals that are speculative, not engineered for field use, not supported by testing tied to reduced injury risk, or not supported by feasibility and risk-benefit evidence may be insufficient to establish a safer alternative design.
- A failure-to-warn claim requires proof that warnings were inadequate and that the inadequacy was a producing cause; when the risk is widely known in the relevant industry and to the user, the evidentiary burden to show inadequacy and causation is not met by general assertions.
- Implied warranty of merchantability requires proof that the product was unfit for its ordinary purposes; absent sufficient proof of a defect or legally inadequate warnings connected to the injury, the warranty claim fails.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit set aside a jury verdict for an injured cable technician because the record lacked legally sufficient evidence of a feasible safer alternative design, lacked proof that any warning deficiency caused the accident, and therefore could not support liability for design defect, failure to warn, or breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Texas law.


Smith v. Louisville Ladder Corp., 237 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2001)