The party opposing summary judgment "must cite to the record in support of the allegations made in the pleadings to demonstrate that a genuine controversy requiring adjudication by a trier of fact exists." Taybron v. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue for trial. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. All justifiable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The substantive law defines which facts are material. Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue the Court should permit the question of punitive damages to remain pending presentation of evidence at trial. Plaintiffs argue a reasonable jury could find in their favor on causation due to the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts who have testified a Taser may contribute to death under certain circumstances. Plaintiffs argue TI's warnings also were defective because TI failed to warn Lomax or LVMPD that the Taser could cause death in certain high risk individuals such as Lomax. As to the design defect claim, Plaintiffs argue the Taser is defective because it is designed to be non-lethal yet it caused or contributed to Lomax's death. Plaintiffs respond by abandoning their negligence and manufacturing defect claims. Finally, TI asserts Plaintiffs' punitive damages claim fails as a matter of law.
Additionally, TI argues no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of causation. TI also contends it is not liable under the sophisticated purchaser/bulk supplier doctrine. TI argues it is entitled to summary judgment on the strict liability claims because Plaintiffs cannot show there was a defect in the design, manufacture, or warnings of the Taser device. Defendant TI argues no reasonable jury could find Lomax was not more at fault for his death than TI, and Lomax assumed the risk of consuming drugs and resisting officers. Defendant TI now *1197 moves for summary judgment on all claims. # 125) asserting against Defendant TI claims for strict products liability for negligent design (count six), strict products liability for negligent manufacturing (count seven), strict products liability for warning defects (count eight), and negligence (count nine).
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. The Court will not repeat the factual recitation here.
DR LOMAX LAS VEGAS FULL
42 at ΒΆ 5.) The facts regarding the incident are set forth in full in the Court's Order ruling on Defendants LVMPD and Rader's Motion for Summary Judgment entered this date. ("TI") manufactures the Taser device Rader used on Lomax. This case arises out of the death of William Lomax ("Lomax") after a struggle with police and security officers during which Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("LVMPD") police officer Reggie Rader ("Rader") used a Taser on Lomax. # 349) to Plaintiffs' Supplement on June 18, 2008. Defendants Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Reggie Rader filed an Opposition (Doc. # 348) to Plaintiffs' Supplement on June 16, 2008. Presently before the Court is Defendant Taser International, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Maley, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants. Brave, Taser International, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, J. Ballard, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, IL, Holly L. Quist, Mark Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick et al., Las Vegas, NV, David T. Cannon, Rawlings Olson Cannon, et al., Brent D. Angulo, Olson Cannon, Gormley & Desruisseaux, Walter R. Cottle, Mainor Eglet Cottle, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs. Depalma, Gentile Depalma, Ltd., Robert T. Gentile, Gordon & Silver, Ltd., Jerome A. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Officer Reggie Rader Taser International, Inc., an Arizona Corporation and Taser International, Inc., a Delaware foreign corporation, Defendants. 2d 1193(2008) LaKisha NEAL-LOMAX LaKisha Neal-Lomax as parent and guardian of Joshua William Lomax LaKisha Neal-Lomax as parent and guardian of Aliaya Tierraee Lomax Juanita Carr as parent and guardian of Inique Alazya Lomax, and Joyce Charleston, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of William D.