Stratton v. Thompson/Center Arms, Inc.

601 F.Supp.3d 1139

Zane STRATTON, Plaintiff,

v.THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS, INC.; Smith & Wesson Corp.; Smith & Wesson Holding Company; Cabela's Wholesale, LLC; and Does I-X, Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00040-DN-PK

United States District Court, D. Utah.

Signed May 2, 2022

David A. Cutt, Margie G. Coles, Matthew O'Connor, Eisenberg Cutt Kendell & Olson, Salt Lake City, UT, Robert A. Thrasher, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy W. Monsees, Pro Hac Vice, Monsees & Mayer Pc, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Anthony M. Pisciotti, Pro Hac Vice, Clifford M. Laney, Danny C. Lallis, Pisciotti Malsch PC, Florham Park, NJ, Jennifer H. Mastrorocco, Goebel Anderson PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

• GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT CHARLES POWELL AND

• GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

David Nuffer, United States District Judge

This case arises out of a firearm explosion that occurred on September 6, 2016. Plaintiff Zane Stratton asserts various claims against Defendant Thompson/Center Arms, Inc. ("Thompson") for serious injuries resulting from the explosion of a muzzleloading rifle manufactured by Thompson. Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment¹ on all of Plaintiff's claims, as well as a Motion to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert Charles Powell ("Motion to Preclude").²

Summary judgment will be GRANTED in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for failure to warn, manufacturing defect, and breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose. Plaintiff's request for punitive damages will also be dismissed. Summary judgment on Plaintiff's other claims will be DENIED.

Additionally, the Motion to Preclude will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Mr. Powell will be permitted to provide expert testimony on the cause of the rifle explosion. However, Mr. Powell will be precluded from offering expert testimony on subjects which require expertise in warnings, external ballistics, or terminal ballistics. Mr. Powell will also not be permitted to testify to other gun barrel explosions where he has no personal knowledge. The prohibited opinions are identified in this order.

Contents

Undisputed Material Facts...1144

The Incident...1145

Procedural History...1145

Discussion...1146

The Motion for Summary Judgment...1146

The parties and claims which were previously dismissed without prejudice will be dismissed with prejudice...1146

Summary judgment will be granted on Plaintiff's manufacturing defect claims, and request for punitive damages...1147

Summary judgment will be denied on Plaintiff's design defect claims...1147

Summary judgment will be denied on Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claims...1147

The Motion to Preclude...1149

Standard for decision on expert witness testimony...1149

Mr. Powell is qualified to testify on the Subject Bullet insofar as his testimony is based off his expertise in internal ballistics, but not external and terminal ballistics...1150

Mr. Powell may not offer expert testimony on warnings...1153 Mr. Powell's opinions are reliable because his conclusions were supported by objective data and characterized by an appropriate degree of intellectual rigor...1153

Mr. Powell may not testify to other lawsuits involving this particular type of firearm exploding...1156

Conclusion and Order...1156

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS³

1. In 2007 or 2008, non-party Jarron Glazier ("Glazier") purchased an Omega Muzzleloading Rifle ("the Subject Rifle") from either Cabela's or Beaver Sport and Pawn.⁴

2. Omega Muzzleloading Rifles, including the Subject Rifle, are designed and manufactured by Defendant Thompson.⁵

3. The Omega was designed with a barrel manufactured from AISI 1137 steel ("1137 steel").⁶

4. Omega rifles, including the Subject Rifle, were shipped with a manual which contained warnings and instructions on use.⁷

5. The manual contained a "limited warranty."⁸

6. The warranty read, in relevant part, "THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS provides a warranty for all factory finished firearms for the LIFETIME OF THE ORIGINAL CONSUMER PURCHASER."⁹

7. Glazier shot the Subject Rifle approximately 10 times per year during his ownership with no apparent issue.¹⁰

8. In the summer of 2012, Plaintiff purchased the Subject Rifle from Glazier. Plaintiff also received the manual package, which included the written manual and a CD.¹¹

9. Plaintiff read the owner's manual after he purchased the rifle.¹²

10. Plaintiff estimates that between 2012 and 2016, he fired the Subject Rifle approximately 30 times per year without issue.¹³

The Incident

11. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff and his brother went to Cedar Mountain, near Cedar City, Utah, to fire their muzzle-loading rifles.¹⁴

12. Plaintiff brought the Subject Rifle to fire.¹⁵

13. September 6th was the first day of the hunting season that Plaintiff shot the rifle.¹⁶

14. Plaintiff testified at a deposition that he cleaned the Subject Rifle prior to firing.¹⁷

15. Plaintiff testified that he loaded the Subject Rifle with black powder and a bullet (the "Subject Bullet"), seated the Subject Bullet with a ramrod, and removed the ramrod.¹⁸

16. When Plaintiff pulled the trigger, the barrel of the Subject Rifle exploded, injuring his hands.¹⁹

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In June 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting various claims against Thompson, Smith & Wesson Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Company, and Cabela's Wholesale, LLC as a result of his injury.²⁰ Specifically, Plaintiff asserted claims for (1) strict liability failure to warn;²¹ (2) strict liability design defect;²² (3) strict liability manufacturing defect;²³ (4) negligence, including negligent failure to warn, negligent design, and negligent manufacturing of the rifle;²⁴ (5) breach of express warranty;²⁵ (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability²⁶ ; and (7) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.²⁷ The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages. Several of the claims, as well as Defendants Smith & Wesson Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Company, and Cabela's Wholesale, LLC, were dismissed without prejudice though stipulated motions.²⁸

On December 10, 2021,²⁹ Thompson filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Preclude. Plaintiff filed responses to the Motion for Summary Judgment³⁰ and the Motion to Preclude.³¹ And Thompson filed replies in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment³² and the Motion to Preclude.³³

DISCUSSION

The Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is only appropriate if "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."³⁴ A factual dispute is genuine when "there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way"³⁵ or "if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."³⁶ A fact is material if "it is essential to the proper disposition of [a] claim."³⁷ In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the factual record and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.³⁸

The parties and claims which were previously dismissed without prejudice will be dismissed with prejudice

On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action for breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose and Plaintiff's failure to warn claims were dismissed without prejudice.³⁹ On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff's stipulated motion to dismiss Defendants Smith & Wesson Corp. and Smith & Wesson Holding Company without prejudice was granted.⁴⁰ On November 20, 2019, Defendant's stipulated motion to dismiss Defendant Cabela's Wholesale, LLC was granted.⁴¹ Thompson seeks to convert these dismissals without prejudice to dismissals with prejudice because the deadlines for Plaintiff to amend pleadings and conduct discovery have now expired.⁴² Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to dismiss the parties with prejudice or the motion to dismiss the failure to warn claim with prejudice.⁴³ Plaintiff does not address the motion in regards to the breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; however, as previously noted, that claim was dismissed without prejudice and the time to amend has passed.⁴⁴

Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for failure to warn and breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose, and Defendants Smith & Wesson Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Company, and Cabela's Wholesale, LLC, are dismissed with prejudice.

Summary judgment will be granted on Plaintiff's manufacturing defect claims, and request for punitive damages

Thompson seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's manufacturing defect claims and Plaintiff's request for punitive damages. Specifically, Thompson argues that (1) Plaintiff's manufacturing defect claims fail because it is undisputed that Subject Rifle was manufactured in accordance with its specifications⁴⁵ and (2) Plaintiff's punitive damages claim fails because there is no evidence that Thompson acted with deliberate indifference to a risk of bodily harm.⁴⁶ Plaintiff does not oppose summary judgment on those claims.⁴⁷ Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in favor of Thompson on Plaintiff's claims for manufacturing defects and for punitive damages. Those claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

Summary judgment will be denied on Plaintiff's design defect claims.

Thompson moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's design defect claims. Thompson's sole basis for this argument is that an expert witness is required to establish a design defect. It contends that because Plaintiff's expert, Charles Powell, should be precluded from testifying, Plaintiff's claim necessarily fails.⁴⁸ As further detailed infra , Mr. Powell will be permitted to provide expert testimony on the materials failure of the Subject Rifle. Therefore, summary judgment on Plaintiff's design defect claim is denied.

Summary judgment will be denied on Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claims

In the sale of the Subject Rifle, Thompson provided a...