
    Robert Paul JOHNSON, as parent and natural guardian of Courtney Johnson and Alisha Johnson, their minor children, Sylvia Selena Johnson, his wife, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of Courtney Johnson and Alisha Johnson, their minor children, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KEOHRING CRANES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-10100.
    D.C. Docket No. 00-00959-CV-J-20-MCR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 25, 2005.
    Robert J. Link, Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    W. Kent Brown, Heinrich Gordon Hargrove Weihe & James, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
    Non-Argument Calendar
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, Robert Paul Johnson, et al., appeal the judgment of the district court, contending that the district court erred in granting Defendant Koehring Cranes, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. More specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant is hable for the injuries Johnson sustained in a construction accident because Koehring’s crane was designed for use with a non-load-bearing safety latch.

We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs have not presented any genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant’s crane had any defect that rendered it unreasonably dangerous. Having reviewed the record, we agree that no reasonable jury could find any design defect based on the fact that the spring latch was not load-bearing. Plaintiffs strict liability claim against Defendant was therefore properly dismissed. See Norton v. Snapper Power Equip., 806 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1987). Because failure to prove any design defect is also fatal to a products liability negligence claim, we further agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim also should be dismissed. See Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Avia tion, Inc., 344 F.3d 1136, 1146 (11th Cir.2003); Marzullo v. Crossman Corp., 289 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342 (M.D.Fla.2003). The judgment of the district court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.  