Andrew Mintz and Mary Mintz v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and Haban Manufacturing, Inc.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-1994
ANDREW MINTZ AND MARY MINTZ,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
SEARS ROEBUCK & CO. AND
HABAN MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Andrew Mintz and Mary Mintz on brief pro se.
David A. Barry, Christine M. Netski, William J. Fidurko, and
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., on brief for appellee,
Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Clark W. Yudysky and Toomey & Yudysky,
LLP on brief for appellee, Haban Manufacturing, Inc.
April 17, 2002

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the briefs
and record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court. The purported design defect was
not relevant given the deposition testimony that the snow-
thrower had been operated in a raised position. However, even
if the defect were relevant, Appellant Andrew Mintz could not
establish that it caused his injury.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27 (c).

-- 2 of 2 --