Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12972
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-21837-CMA
RENE LEONCIO,
HEIDI LEONCIO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC.,
f.k.a. Davidson Ladder Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 6, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Plaintiffs Rene and Heidi Leoncio appeal the district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of Louisville Ladder, Inc. Mr. Leoncio was injured
when a ladder designed and manufactured by Louisville Ladder gave way beneath
him while he was removing Christmas lights from his home. He filed this lawsuit
in state court, bringing claims for strict liability, negligence, and loss of
consortium. Louisville Ladder removed the case to federal court.
The district court granted partial summary judgment to Louisville Ladder for
the claims based on a failure-to-warn theory of liability. The court found that Mr.
Leoncio’s deposition testimony clearly established his failure to read the warning
labels on the ladder. Although Mr. Leoncio filed an affidavit stating that he had
read the labels, the district disregarded it as a sham affidavit because it was “in
direct contradiction with his earlier deposition testimony” and was not filed until
after the defendant moved for summary judgment. Partial Summary Judgment
Order, ECF No. 91 at 8. The affidavit was filed four months after Mr. Leoncio’s
deposition and three days before the plaintiffs’ response to the defendant’s
summary judgment motion was due. Mr. Leoncio never attempted to correct his
deposition through errata sheets or otherwise.
The district court further rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that, even
assuming Mr. Leoncio failed to read the warnings, Louisville Ladder could be
2
Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 3 of 4
liable for his injuries nonetheless. Under Florida law, 1 however, “‘[w]here the
person to whom the manufacturer owed a duty to warn . . . has not read the label,
an inadequate warning cannot be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.’”
Id. at 10 (quoting Lopez v. So. Coatings, Inc., 580 So. 2d 864, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA
1991). The district court therefore granted summary judgment on the claims
“predicated on Defendant’s failure to provide an adequate warning,” but allowed
the design defect, manufacturing defect, and loss of consortium claims to proceed.
Id. at 10. The plaintiffs later decided not to pursue these remaining claims, and the
district court entered final judgment in favor of Louisville Ladder.
The plaintiffs repeat the same arguments on appeal.2 We agree with the
district court’s reasoning in its partial summary judgment order. Mr. Leoncio’s
deposition testimony unambiguously established that he had never read the
warning labels on the ladder. His self-serving, contradictory affidavit filed after
Louisville Ladder moved for summary judgment was insufficient to create an issue
of material fact. Florida law is clear that Mr. Leoncio’s failure to read the warning
1
The district court implicitly found that Florida law applies, and the parties did not
challenge that determination below or on appeal. Accordingly, we will apply Florida law. Cavic
v. Grand Bahama Dev. Co., Ltd., 701 F.2d 879, 882 (11th Cir. 1983).
2
The plaintiffs also argue on appeal that there were genuine issues of material fact
regarding whether the warning label was adequate because it (1) was inconspicuous and (2) did
not address the danger of inverted positioning of the ladder. These arguments are arguably
waived. See Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 103 at 3. Even if not waived
and not foreclosed by Florida law on proximate cause, these arguments fail because Mr. Leoncio
admitted that he had seen the warning label, and the warning label clearly shows the correct
positioning of the ladder with the foot grips on the ground and the fly above the base, with
arrows pointing to the locks where the fly overlaps the base.
3
Case: 14-12972 Date Filed: 05/06/2015 Page: 4 of 4
cuts off Louisville Ladder’s liability based on the alleged inadequacy of the
warning. Id. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
4