F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
MAR 20 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
SABINO HIDALGO, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. No. 99-1033
FAGEN, INC.; KWS
MANUFACTURING CO., INC.;
DAVID KAMINSKI; DARYL
GILLUND,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 96-WM-672)
Eduardo M. Madrid (and George G. Johnson, Jr., Peter M. Johnson, and Andrew
R. Johnson, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), Diamond Bar, California,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Diane Vaksdal Smith (and Scott J. Eldredge, with her on the briefs), Burg,
Simpson, Eldredge & Hersh, P.C., Englewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee
KWS Manufacturing, Inc.
Wendelyn K. Walberg, Walberg, Dagner & Tucker, P.C., Englewood, Colorado,
for Defendant-Appellee Fagen, Inc.
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, TACHA, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Mr. Sabino Hidalgo, suffered grievous injuries to his
arm while cleaning a screw conveyor at the Excel meat packing plant in Fort
Morgan, Colorado. His arm ultimately required amputation. He brought suit
against KWS Manufacturing, Inc. (“KWS”), the company that manufactured the
component parts of the screw conveyor; Fagen, Inc. (“Fagen”), the contractor
hired to construct the conveyor system; and two individuals, David Kaminski,
who oversaw the construction of the conveyor, and Daryl Gillund, Fagen’s chief
financial officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of KWS,
Mr. Kaminski and Mr. Gillund. The district court granted partial summary
judgment in favor of Fagen on the claims that it was strictly liable for injuries
caused by the conveyor, and it had breached express and implied warranties
concerning the screw conveyor. The matter went to trial on Mr. Hildago’s
negligence claims against Fagen and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Fagen.
Mr. Hidalgo appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of KWS on his strict liability claims, arguing that (1) he did, in fact, meet
his burden by demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact, and (2) the district
court applied the wrong standard, requiring him to prove that the parts in question
were defective when they left KWS’s control. He also appeals from the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Fagen on his strict liability claim, arguing that the
-2-
district court erred in deciding that strict liability principles do not apply to
fixtures or improvements to real property under Colorado law.
Mr. Hidalgo seeks a new trial on several grounds. He argues that the
district court improperly denied his Batson challenge to Fagen’s peremptory
strikes, thereby permitting Fagen to exclude all Hispanics from the jury. Next, he
challenges various evidentiary rulings. He contends that the district court
incorrectly (1) limited the testimony of his expert witness; (2) permitted Fagen’s
expert witness to testify as to compliance with OSHA standards; (3) permitted
references to worker’s compensation, in violation of its prior ruling; and (4)
permitted a witness for Fagen to speculate about the customary practices of those
employees who clean screw conveyors at the plant. Finally, Mr. Hidalgo contends
that a new trial is warranted because there was jury tampering. Our jurisdiction
arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
A. Strict Liability Claim Against KWS
Mr. Hidalgo first challenges summary judgment in favor of KWS on his
strict liability claim. He contends that inclusion of a report by an engineer, John
Sevart, was sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding a design
defect in the screw conveyor system supplied by KWS. He further contends that
the district court applied the wrong summary judgment standard, impermissibly
requiring him to demonstrate that the product was defective when it left KWS’s
-3-
control.
We review summary judgment rulings de novo. See Southwestern Bell
Wireless, Inc. v. Johnson County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 199 F.3d 1185, 1189
(10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party
demonstrates that there is “‘no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and that it is
‘entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144
F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The moving party
bears the initial burden of showing that there are no genuine disputed issues of
fact. See id. If the movant does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at
trial, he may make this showing by identifying a lack of evidence on any essential
element of the nonmovant’s claim. See id. at 671. If the nonmovant bears the
ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, he may not rest on his pleadings, rather he
must set forth specific facts that would be admissible as evidence and from which
a rational trier of fact could find for him at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
As noted, the KWS screw conveyor was a component part sold to Fagen
used in the meat rendering system built for the Excel plant. For Mr. Hidalgo to
succeed on his strict liability claim against KWS for the screw conveyor, he was
required to demonstrate that the part itself was defective, not the final product. 1
1
Mr. Hildago is correct that the district court articulated the wrong
standard for success on a strict liability claim against a component part
manufacturer under Colorado law. The district court stated that to succeed, Mr.
-4-
See Bond v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 868 P.2d 1114, 1119 (Colo. Ct. App.
1993). There is no evidence to this effect. Mr. Hildago did submit an expert
report that discussed the screw conveyor as it functioned in the final meat
rendering system. The report concluded that it was unreasonably dangerous, and
that alternative designs would vitiate this condition. However, these largely
unsupported conclusions do not allege defects in the component part standing on
its own. Thus, summary judgment was proper. Moreover, no evidence suggests
that KWS collaborated with Fagen in the design of the final meat rendering
system, thereby exposing KWS to liability for system defects.
B. Strict Liability Claims Against Fagen
Mr. Hidalgo next argues that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Fagen. Contrary to his assertions, Colorado has explicitly
adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, which imposes strict liability
in tort upon a manufacturer or seller for harm caused by a defective product
which the manufacturer has placed into the stream of commerce. See Hiigel v.
Hidalgo would have to show that the part was defective “at the time it left the
component part manufacturer’s control.” Aplt. App. 321. However, the Colorado
Supreme Court explicitly rejected this standard in Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van
Hoose, 679 P.2d 579, 590 (Colo. 1984). Colorado law instead requires a plaintiff
to prove that the defect that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous
occurred in the course of the manufacture/distribution process and before the
plaintiff acquired the product. See id. Our de novo review employs the correct
standard.
-5-
General Motors Corp., 544 P.2d 983 (Colo. 1975). The Colorado Products
Liability Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-21-401, et seq., defines “manufacturer,”
limits liability of sellers and distributors who are not manufacturers, and creates a
presumption of non-defectiveness for products sold ten years or more before any
claimed injuries. Under Colorado law, the sine qua non of a strict liability claim
is the “sale” of a “product.” See St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Schmaltz, 534 P.2d 781, 784
(Colo. 1975). Fagen moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the
construction of the conveyor system was not the sale of a product. It attached
evidence tending to show that it was a contractor, providing a service and
incidental materials. Fagen’s summary judgment evidence included work
agreements referring to Fagen as a “contractor,” and a mechanics lien.
Colorado courts have been reticent about extending the doctrine of strict
liability to the provision of services. See Schmaltz, 534 P.2d at 784; see also
Smith v. Home Light & Power Co., 734 P.2d 1051, 1056 (Colo. 1987) (affirming
the view of the court of appeals that provision of a service cannot provide a
foundation for imposition of strict products liability); Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels
Corp., 655 P.2d 822, 828 (Colo. 1982) (“[T]he tort rationale for product liability
does not easily extend to cover the providing of services.”).
Moreover, as both parties recognize, the Colorado Supreme Court has not
extended the principles of product liability to real property improvements. The
-6-
Colorado Products Liability Act is silent on this point. In the context of products
liability, Colorado law draws a sharp distinction between improvements to real
property and “products.” See Enright v. City of Colorado Springs, 716 P.2d 148,
150 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985) (holding that the trial court improperly applied the
Colorado Products Liability Act to an improvement to real property for purposes
of the statute of limitations). In viewing the summary judgment evidence on this
point, it appears to us that Mr. Hildago has not come forward with sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that Fagen sold a product, rather than sold services,
resulting in an improvement to real property.
C. Batson Challenges
During voir dire, Fagen exercised two peremptory strikes against two
apparent Hispanic women, Ms. Martinez and Ms. Gonzales (in that order). Upon
Fagan’s striking Ms. Gonzales, Mr. Hidalgo objected that the peremptory strike
was racially motivated, reminding the court that she was one of two Hispanics on
the jury. When Fagen struck Ms. Martinez earlier, Mr. Hidalgo did not object.
The district court inquired as to Fagan’s justification for exercising a peremptory
strike on Ms. Gonzales. Counsel for Fagen responded:
Your honor, when I approached this jury and this jury
selection, one of the fundamental principles I was looking
for is I prefer older people, rather than younger people. I
would prefer men, rather than women. And when it came
down to the third choice, I saw – I had a choice between
two, and I chose the older – to keep the older and strike the
-7-
younger because I think older people who have had trauma
in their lives understand about getting on with it and I
think Mr. Hidalgo has not. And therefore, that’s why I
prefer age over youth.
Aplt. App. at 655-56. The trial court further questioned whether or not Ms.
Gonzales’ Hispanic background motivated the strike. Counsel for Fagen
answered:
No. Quite frankly, I had some concerns about it; but I
think she’s intelligent. And quite frankly, I want an
intelligent jury....
Id. The trial court was satisfied that these responses were sufficiently race
neutral, and rejected Mr. Hidalgo’s challenge. Mr. Hidalgo made no further
challenge, either based on race or gender discrimination. See Aplt. App. at 656.
On appeal, Mr. Hidalgo argues that the court should have (1) further
pursued Fagen’s remarks regarding Ms. Gonzales’ intellect vis-a-vis her Hispanic
background; (2) made independent inquiries into Fagen’s justification for striking
Ms. Martinez; (3) required Fagen to justify its exclusion of all Hispanics from the
jury; and (4) raised, sua sponte, a Batson challenge against Fagen for its gender
discriminatory justification for striking Ms. Gonzales. We deal with each
argument in turn.
The Batson analytic is well settled. Once the party raising the Batson
challenge establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the proponent of
the peremptory strike must submit a racially neutral explanation. The party
-8-
raising the challenge must then be given the opportunity to show pretext. See
Davis v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 160 F.3d 1023, 1028 (4th Cir. 1998).
Subsequently, the trial court must decide whether the party raising the Batson
claim has proven purposeful discrimination. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765,
767-68 (1995). The party bringing the Batson challenge always carries the
ultimate burden of persuasion. See Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 109 F.3d 1540,
1546 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Elem, 514 U.S. at 768). In our review of the
district court’s disposition of the Batson claim, we analyze Fagen’s proffered
racially neutral explanation as a legal issue, de novo. See United States v.
Johnson, 941 F.2d 1102, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991). We review the trial court’s
ultimate finding that there was no intentional discrimination for clear error. See
id.
We are satisfied that Fagen’s explanation was race-neutral. A neutral
explanation means an explanation based on something besides the race of the
juror. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 (1991). We look
specifically at the facial validity of the explanation. Unless discriminatory intent
is inherent in the justification, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.
See id.
A fair reading of the explanation for the strike is that Fagen’s counsel
struck Ms. Gonzales because of her youth. We have held this to be an acceptable
-9-
race-neutral justification for exercising a peremptory strike. See United States v.
Joe, 8 F.3d 1488, 1499 (10th Cir. 1993). Counsel’s comment in response to the
court’s follow up does not evince an inherent discriminatory intent. As the
Supreme Court made clear in Hernandez, discriminatory purpose in this context
has a fixed meaning in the constellation of equal protection jurisprudence. That
is, “discriminatory intent” implies that the decisionmaker chose a course of action
“‘because of,’” not merely “‘in spite of,’” its adverse effects upon an identifiable
group. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 (quoting Personnel Administrator of Mass. v.
Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979)). When the trial court asked Fagen whether
Ms. Gonzales’ Hispanic background influenced his decision to strike her, he
responded unequivocally that it did not. The district court’s finding on this aspect
of the Batson claim is not clearly erroneous.
We are unpersuaded by the remainder of Mr. Hidalgo’s Batson arguments.
The essence of these arguments is that the court should have independently
required Fagen’s counsel to justify the striking of all the Hispanics from the
venire and should have raised Batson claims based upon the strike of Ms.
Martinez and the remark by Fagen’s counsel that he “preferred men to women.”
Implicit in Mr. Hidalgo’s Batson challenge to the striking of Ms. Gonzales,
was the argument that the result was the removal of all Hispanics from the venire:
Your Honor, there has been a challenge to Juror No. 1, Ms.
Gonzales, who is one of two Hispanics on the jury, the
- 10 -
only Spanish-speaking individual. Under Batsen v.
Kentucky [sic], I would challenge that challenge.
Aplt. App. at 655. The district court then followed the proper procedure.
Finally, Mr. Hidalgo argues that he is entitled to relief because the trial
court failed to raise, sua sponte, a Batson claim when Fagen stated, in reference
to his striking Ms. Gonzales, that one of his organizing principles of jury
selection in the instant case was that he preferred male jurors to female ones. See
J.E.B. v. Alabama Ex Rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 143 (1994). Mr. Hidalgo failed to
raise this objection at any point below. Thus, we review this claim for plain error
only. See United States v. Bedonie, 913 F.2d 782, 794 (10th Cir. 1990). In the
civil context, we will reverse only if the error is one that “seriously affect[s] ‘the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Glenn v. Cessna
Aircraft Co., 32 F.3d 1462, 1464 (10th Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded that the
trial court’s failure to raise a J.E.B. claim in the instant case rises to this level.
Thus, Mr. Hidalgo’s claim for relief on this issue fails.
D. Evidentiary Rulings
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. See Webb v.
ABF Freight Sys. Inc., 155 F.3d 1230, 1246 (10th Cir. 1998). Under this
standard, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless we have a “‘definite
and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or
exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.’” Boughton v.
- 11 -
Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823, 832 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting McEwen v. City of
Norman, 926 F.2d 1539, 1553 (10th Cir. 1991)). Moreover, Mr. Hidalgo is
entitled to a new trial only if the error affected his substantial rights. See Webb,
155 F.3d at 1246.
Because the only claim against Fagen at trial was negligence, the district
court prohibited Mr. Hidalgo’s expert witness, John Sevart, from testifying about
design defects in the screw conveyor system, and 402A standards. See Aplt. App.
at 424-25. Mr. Hidalgo contends that it is impossible to prove negligent
installation without presenting evidence about design defect. This simply does
not follow. Mr. Hidalgo’s expert was permitted to testify about installation
standards, and in this context was allowed to discuss the lack of safety features on
the screw conveyor.
Mr. Hidalgo next contends that the trial court erroneously permitted one of
Fagen’s experts to testify that Fagen had complied with OSHA and other various
safety standards. Mr. Hidalgo initially filed a motion in limine to exclude all
OSHA evidence on the grounds that it was irrelevant and confusing. The trial
court declined to rule on the motion, instead opting to make admissibility
determinations as the issue arose. At trial, Mr. Hidalgo questioned his own
witness on the issue of OSHA standards in regard to the installation of the screw
conveyor. See Aplt. App. at 459. More importantly, however, Mr. Hidalgo failed
- 12 -
to renew the objections from his original motion in limine when Fagen’s experts
testified as to compliance with OSHA and other safety standards. Where the trial
judge has declined to rule on a motion in limine, and the objection to the evidence
is not renewed at trial, the objection is waived. See United States v. Mejia-
Alarcon, 995 F.2d 982, 985-88 (10th Cir. 1993); McEwen, 926 F.2d at 1544-45
(10th Cir. 1991).
Mr. Hidalgo next argues that the trial court incorrectly admitted testimony
regarding worker’s compensation, in contravention of its prior ruling. Mr.
Hidalgo filed a motion in limine to exclude all reference to worker’s
compensation. The trial court ruled:
The motion to exclude worker’s comp. file and benefits:
The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The – as
I understand, there is an issue on failure to mitigate
damages, including that the plaintiff has not taken
advantage of different programs available to him. And
those questions can be asked, but the specific recovery by
the plaintiff will not be allowed and again as appropriate
may be a setoff to any damage recovery.
Aplt. App. at 557. In support of his claim that this ruling was violated, Mr.
Hidalgo notes testimony elicited by Fagen: a reference to “maximum medical
improvement,” Aplt. App. at 700-703; a question about resources available to the
Plaintiff, to which the witness responded “Are you talking about worker’s comp?”
Aplt. App. at 709; and testimony of Plaintiff’s expert regarding resources
available that made no reference whatsoever to worker’s compensation. Aplt.
- 13 -
App. at 661. These incidental references do not violate the court’s ruling; there
are no references to specific recovery by the Plaintiff.
We are likewise unconvinced that Mr. Hidalgo is entitled to a new trial
because the trial court permitted Fagen’s witness, Mr. Reed, to testify that during
his tenure at the plant, he had frequently observed employees cleaning the screw
conveyor while it was activated. Allowing this evidence was not an abuse of
discretion. Moreover, Mr. Hidalgo brought out on cross examination that Mr.
Reed had not witnessed the accident itself, and had no firsthand knowledge of the
specifics surrounding it.
Finally, Mr. Hidalgo argues that he is entitled to relief because of jury
tampering. The sole basis for this allegation is that an exhibit (D-59) was
erroneously included among jury materials distributed at trial. The exhibit was a
handwritten note that read “Plaintiff’s Work. Comp. File - to be produced via
subpoena at trial.” Aplt. App. at 723. The record does not reflect when the
exhibit was distributed, nor who was the responsible party for its distribution.
One juror later testified that it was not discussed at all in deliberations and that it
did not influence the jury’s decisionmaking. Aplt. App. at 671, 673. Of course,
if jurors are provided exhibit books during trial, or if exhibits are given to the
jury during deliberation, care must be taken to insure that only properly admitted
exhibits are included. That frequently will necessitate a careful review by both
- 14 -
parties, and the court, of what was and was not admitted during trial. That said,
while it is unfortunate that this exhibit found its way to the jury, no prejudice has
been shown. Thus, a new trial on this ground given these facts would be
completely unwarranted.
AFFIRMED.
- 15 -