LAS VEGAS (Legal Newsline) – A literal and figurative big win has been scored by plaintiffs lawyers in Nevada, thanks to a July 30 Court of Appeals decision.
That ruling held that a giant sign is subject to a products liability lawsuit, despite its size. The court was tasked with determining if the doctrine of strict products liability could be applied to large fixtures such as the MGM Grand sign, which is located atop a 150-foot steel pylon.
Plaintiff Charles Schueler filed suit with lawyers at Brenske & Andreevski after he fell all 150 feet to the ground while serving the sign’s LED display. A floor panel allegedly failed, leading to the case against Ad Art.
“(L)arge commercial signs, such as the MGM pylon sign, are products for purposes of strict liability, where, as here, they are designed, manufactured, and sold by a party engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing such signs,” Judge Bonnie Bulla wrote.
“Further, to the extent that the pylon sign was custom-made for MGM, this alone is insufficient to remove it from the sphere of strict liability, especially because the public policy considerations for applying the doctrine of strict products liability in this case have been satisfied.”
The court leaned on the Second Restatement of Torts when reaching this decision, rejecting Ad Art’s claim that the sign should have been treated like an immovable real estate fixture and exempt from strict products liability claims.
The court said there is no evidence the sign is immovable, considering it was made in California and transported to Vegas in sections.
“It stands to reason, therefore, that even though it may be difficult and expensive, the sign could be dismantled from the pylon and moved once again,” Bulla wrote.
“In fact, if MGM ever sold its hotel casino to another owner to operate under another name, one can imagine that the new operator would do exactly that: remove MGM’s sign and mount its own sign on top of the existing pylon.”
The court also said transportability was not a catch-all defense and that the Second Restatement does not limit strict products liability in that way.
Celebrating the ruling are Nevada’s personal injury lawyers. Their group – the Nevada Justice Association – filed an amicus brief in the case.