When can courts strike declarations for contradicting deposition testimony? Feasel v. Tracker Marine Explained

In Feasel v. Tracker Marine, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may strike declarations that allegedly contradict earlier deposition testimony, providing important guidance for practitioners handling summary judgment motions.

Background and Facts

Feasel was injured when a boat he was riding in struck an object, ejecting both him and the operator. Because the operator wasn’t wearing the kill-switch lanyard, the boat continued running and circled back, repeatedly striking Feasel with its propellers—a phenomenon known as the “circle of death.” Feasel sued the boat manufacturers for failure to warn, arguing their warnings didn’t specifically address this circling danger. The district court struck declarations from Feasel and the boat operator, finding they contradicted their deposition testimony, then granted summary judgment for defendants.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the trial court properly struck the declarations for contradicting deposition testimony, and (2) whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the inadequate warning claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed on both issues. Regarding the declarations, the court applied the established rule that parties cannot contradict their deposition testimony through affidavits unless they can explain the discrepancy. However, after carefully reviewing both the depositions and declarations, the court found no actual contradictions. The declarations merely “clarified and expanded” the deposition testimony rather than contradicting it. The declarants had distinguished between general propeller dangers (which they knew about) and the specific circle-of-death phenomenon (which they claimed not to know about).

On the failure-to-warn claim, the court held that adequacy of warnings typically presents a question of fact for the jury. The existing warnings didn’t specifically mention the circle-of-death danger, and genuine disputes existed about whether the users had actual knowledge of this specific hazard.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that courts should not strike declarations unless there are clear, actual contradictions with deposition testimony. Mere clarification or expansion of prior testimony doesn’t justify striking declarations. For product liability cases, the ruling emphasizes that warning adequacy and user knowledge are typically factual questions that resist resolution on summary judgment, particularly when dealing with specific versus general dangers.