No Duty On Manufacturer Of Taser Gun To Warn Of Risks Not Knowable .

After report of a disturbance, police went to a scene and found a man “either really high or crazy.” The man struck the police vehicle with his hand and continued on his way. The situation deteriorated with the man breaking a fence, assuming a batter’s position and swinging a two by four at officers. After the man ignored verbal commands, police used a Taser on him. They continued to use the Taser as the man continued to resist. The man went into cardiac arrest and died. The man’s family brought an action against the Taser manufacturer, claiming it should have warned that repeated use can cause fatal levels of metabolic acidosis. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating there was no duty to warn because the risk of acidosis was not knowable to the manufacturer at the time of the death.  Rosa v. Taser International, Inc.   (Ninth Cir.; July 10, 2012) 684 F.3d 941.