Salazar v. Wolo Manufacturing Group

Fourteen-year-old Leticia Martinez was driving a car in a parking lot while her uncle was teaching her how to drive. The uncle’s antitheft device, The Club, was stored under the driver’s seat of the car. While the car was moving, the antitheft device slid out from under the seat and lodged under the brake pedal, so that Martinez was unable to brake. The car struck the Salazars (plaintiffs), causing injuries. The Salazars sued Martinez and the manufacturer of The Club, Wolo Manufacturing Group (Wolo) (defendants). The Salazars claimed Wolo’s antitheft device contained a marketing defect because it did not come with instructions on how to safely store the device. The Salazars also claimed Wolo was defectively designed because a safer alternative design was available. In the trial court, Wolo filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court ultimately granted, severing the Salazars’ claim against Wolo from their claims against Martinez. The Salazars appealed to the state court of appeals, claiming Wolo’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the issue of the foreseeability of product use was an issue for the jury. Wolo countered, arguing that summary judgment was appropriate because the Salazars could not recover as a matter of law because Wolo’s product was being stored, not used, at the time of the incident.