Shah-haan Pryce v. Septodont, Inc., et al.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 15, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15914
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-02652-TCB
SHAH-HAAN PRYCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SEPTODONT, INC.,
SOFIC, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 15, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, KRAVITCH and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by*
designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Appellant Shah-haan Pryce appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Pryce’s state law strict products
liability claim. Pryce’s suit alleged that the defendants produced a defective
dental needle and, as a result of the defect, part of the needle broke off inside
Pryce’s cheek during a nerve block injection, causing Pryce substantial injury.
Pryce was unable to present direct evidence of a defect in the needle because the
needle is not available for examination or testing: the part of the needle that broke
off at the hub is lodged in his neck, and his treating dentist disposed of the
remaining portion of the needle. Pryce claims, however, that the district court
erred in granting summary judgment because the testimony of his treating dentist
showed that the unaltered needle failed to operate as intended in normal use, and
thus provided circumstantial evidence of a product defect. We affirm.
A plaintiff bringing a claim under Georgia’s strict product liability statute
“must show that the device did not operate as intended and this was the proximate
cause of his injuries.” Williams v. Am. Med. Sys., 548 S.E.2d 371, 374 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2001). “[T]he existence of a manufacturing defect in a products liability case
may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v.
King, 244 S.E.2d 905, 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Here, Pryce has failed to provide evidence that the device did not operate as
intended because he has not shown that the 30-gauge short needle at issue was
intended for use in nerve block injections. The deposition testimony of Pryce’s
treating dentist, Dr. Tampa Rhodes, shows that dental needles come in various
lengths and widths and that different sized needles are used for different types of
injections performed by dentists. While Pryce testified that she personally
believed it appropriate to use 30-gauge short needles for nerve block injections
and that she did not do anything unusual during the procedure to cause the
needle’s breakage, her testimony does not establish that the nerve block injections
were an intended use of a 30-gauge short needle. Moreover, the record here shows
that there are six different sized needles available from Dr. Rhodes’ supplier, and
that the manufacturer’s package insert indicates that only one of these sizes–a
needle both longer and wider than the 30-gauge needle used here–should be used
for nerve block injections. Because the evidence indicates that different sized
dental needles have different intended uses, and because Pryce failed to establish
that the 30-gauge short needle was intended for use in the procedure at issue,
summary judgment was appropriate. See Williams, 548 S.E.2d at 374.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --