Watson et al v. Vista Outdoor, Inc. et al
Filing
81
ORDER GRANTING 65 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/26/2018. (swest)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00514-CMA-KLM
CHRISTINA WATSON,
ROBERT WATSON, and
THE ESTATE OF FALON WATSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VISTA OUTDOOR, INC.,
VISTA OUTDOOR OPERATIONS, LLC, and
VISTA OUTDOOR SALES, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Vista Outdoor, Inc., Vista Outdoor
Operations, LLC, and Vista Outdoor Sales, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. # 65.) Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. # 71) on May 25, 2018 and
Defendants filed a reply (Doc. # 72) on June 7, 2018. Having thoroughly reviewed the
underlying briefing, pertinent record, and applicable law, the Court grants Defendants’
Motion for the following reasons.
I.
BACKGROUND
Fifteen-year-old Fallon Watson (“Decedent”) died from a single gunshot wound to
the head on March 1, 2014 (“the incident”). (Doc. ## 35 at ¶¶ 9-10, 65-1 at 4.) After
performing an autopsy, Dr. Robert Bux described Decedent’s wound as a “[p]enetrating
gunshot wound with the bullet going steeply upward through the hard palate adjacent to
the right maxillary canine tooth and entering the right frontal lobe striking the dura and
ricocheting backward, lodging in the medial superior margin of the right frontoparietal
lobe area.” (Doc. # 65-1 at 5.) Dr. Bux concluded that “[a]t the time of discharge, the end
of the muzzle of the weapon was placed in contact with the skin underneath the right
chin” and that the wound was “self-inflicted . . . .” (Id.)
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are Decedent’s parents and Decedent’s estate. (Doc. #
35 at ¶¶ 1-2.) On the day of the incident, Decedent’s father discovered her body. (Id. at
¶ 12.) At that time, the pistol that discharged and caused Decedent’s death was
underneath her body, inside a holster that was fastened with a strap. (Doc # 71 at 3.)
Defendants manufactured a nylon holster branded as Uncle Mike’s Sidekick Hip Holster
(“the holster”), which was carrying the pistol involved in the incident. (Doc. # 35 at ¶¶
12-16, 18.)
Plaintiffs argue that the pistol discharged accidentally because of a defect in the
design of the holster. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the holster’s design
featured soft sides which allowed the pistol’s safety to be unintentionally disengaged
and the pistol’s trigger to be unintentionally pulled. See (Doc. # 71 at 4.) Defendants, by
contrast, argue that the design of their holster is not defective and that the holster could
not have contributed to Decedent’s death as Plaintiffs allege. (Doc. # 65 at 4.)
2
II.
A.
ANALYSIS
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it is essential to the proper
disposition of the claim under the relevant substantive law. Wright v. Abbot Labs., Inc.,
259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such
that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v.
Muskogee, Okl., 118 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). When reviewing motions for
summary judgment, a court may not resolve issues of credibility, and must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—including all reasonable
inferences from that evidence. Id. However, conclusory statements based merely on
conjecture, speculation, or subjective belief do not constitute competent summary
judgment evidence. Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In
attempting to meet this standard, a movant who does not bear the ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial does not need to disprove the other party’s claims; rather, the movant
need simply point the court to a lack of evidence for the other party on an essential
element of that party’s claim. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 644, 671 (10th
Cir. 1998) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)).
3
Once the movant meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving
party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The nonmoving party may not simply
rest upon its pleadings to satisfy this burden. Id. Rather, the nonmoving party must “set
forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence from which a rational trier of
fact could find for the nonmoving party.” Adler, 144 F.3d at 671. “To accomplish this, the
facts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific
exhibits incorporated therein.” Id. Ultimately, the Court’s inquiry on summary judgment
is whether the facts and evidence identified by the parties present “a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party
must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
B.
APPLICATION
Plaintiffs assert two products liability theories against Defendants. First, Plaintiffs
argue that Defendants are strictly liable because Defendants manufactured and sold a
defectively designed product. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants negligently
breached their duty of care by failing to properly design the holster, provide warnings
about accidental discharge, or recall the holster. (Doc. # 71 at 5, 9.)
1.
Strict Product Liability
A claim for strict product liability in Colorado requires a plaintiff to prove the
following elements:
(1) the product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
end user or consumer; (2) the product is expected to and does reach the
consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold;
(3) the design defect caused the plaintiff’s injury; (4) the defendant sold the
4
product and is engaged in the business of selling products; and (5) the
plaintiff sustained damages.
Barton v. Adams Rental, Inc., 938 P.2d 532, 536-37 (Colo. 1997) (citation omitted).
Where, as here, a plaintiff asserts that a product is unreasonably dangerous due
to a design defect and the dangerousness of the design is “defined primarily by
technical, scientific information,” the Colorado Supreme Court has held that courts
should employ a “risk-benefit test.” Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 406 P.3d 845, 847 (Colo.
2017) (citation omitted) (noting consumer expectation test is not appropriate for such a
case). In order to prove that a product is in a defective condition which makes it
unreasonably dangerous to the end user under the risk-benefit test, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that, “on balance, the risk of danger inherent in a challenged design
outweighs the benefits of such a design.” Barton, 938 P.2d at 537 (citation omitted).
Whether the risk of danger outweighs the benefits of a superior design depends on an
analysis of factors including the following:
(1) the product’s usefulness and desirability; (2) its safety aspects; (3) the
availability of a safer product; (4) the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the
unsafe characteristics; (5) the user’s ability to avoid any danger through the
exercise of care; (6) the user’s anticipated awareness of the inherent
danger; [and] (7) the feasibility of the manufacturer spreading any loss
among its customers.
Armentrout v. FMC Corp., 842 P.2d 175, 184 (Colo. 1992) (citations omitted). The
foregoing factors are not exhaustive “but merely illustrative of factors which may assist
in determining whether or not a design is unreasonably dangerous.” Id. Additionally,
depending “on the circumstances of each case, flexibility is necessary to decide which
factors are to be applied and the list of factors . . . may be expanded as needed.” Id.
5
a.
Defendants’ argument
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ strict
liability claim because there is no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to whether
Defendants’ product is defective. (Doc. # 65 at 5.) Defendants assert that “the
undisputed evidence demonstrates that there was no defect in the holster and that the
holster was appropriately manufactured . . . .” (Id. at 6.) To support their argument,
Defendants’ provide the reports of two firearms experts who opine that the Defendants’
holster was neither unsafe nor defectively designed.
Defendants’ expert Thomas Marx is a trained engineer, police officer, and holster
designer. (Doc. # 65-1 at 38.) Mr. Marx is “listed as an Inventor on 14 Holster and
Holster Related Patents (5 for Holsters alone) and some 25 Patents within firearms
holster and accessory categories overall” and he has “taught, lectured and written about
holsters and their designs on a worldwide level . . . .” (Id.) In his investigation, Mr. Marx
analyzed Plaintiffs’ holster which had been substantially altered by law enforcement in
routine investigations after the incident. (Id.) Mr. Marx noted that the holster, a “Size 5
Uncle Mike’s SIDEKICK Hip Holster” features a patented and unique “construction
technique that allowed for the use of foam core, 3-layer, nylon laminate, instead of just
employing one or more layers of nylon fabric.” (Id.) In light of the composition of the
holster and the materials used in its construction, Mr. Marx concluded that “[a]s
designed, this holster will perform as intended, and provide the end user with a safe and
secure method to carry the appropriate firearm(s) on their person.” (Id.)
6
Defendants’ also provide the expert opinion of Michael Shain, who is a “firearms
handling and safety expert, and [an] experienced law enforcement officer . . . .” (Id.) Mr.
Shain analyzed Plaintiffs’ holster and pistol involved in the incident as well as an
identical exemplar holster and pistol for testing purposes. (Id. at 43.) Mr. Shain
determined that although Plaintiffs’ holster is a size too small for Plaintiffs’ pistol, the
holster “still covers the safety lever of the pistol, protecting it from inadvertent
manipulations.” (Id. at 45.) Mr. Shain explained:
[i]t is possible to intentionally reach into the holster and move the lever from
the safe to fire position, but because of the positive nature of the safety lever
detent mechanism and the amount of force necessary to move the lever
down, (approximately 6 pounds), an unintentional disengagement of the
manual safety while covered by the holster would require some type of
extraordinary abuse and/or misuse of the pistol and holster. The positive
purchase of the safety detent and the force required to move it also preclude
the possibility that the holster itself disengaged the safety on the subject
pistol.
(Id.) In addition to the fact that Defendants’ holster prevents a manual safety from being
unintentionally disengaged, Mr. Shain also found that the design of the holster is such
that the holster prevents an unintentional trigger pull. (Id. at 47.) Specifically, Mr. Shain
found that the holster is “thick and stiff” and the “entire trigger guard and trigger of the
subject pistol is enclosed in the holster and is in a location near to the outside seam
stitching which adds strength and rigidity to the holster.” (Id.) To test the design of the
holster, Mr. Shain attempted to discharge a pistol while it was inside the holster:
With the pistol cocked and the safety placed in the fire position, [Mr. Shain]
attempted to squeeze through the holster in the area of the trigger guard
and move the trigger. Numerous attempts using each hand and both hands
together resulted in no discharges of the pistol. The holster is simply too
thick and stiff to allow manipulation of the trigger from the outside of the
holster. The construction of the Uncle Mike’s Sidekick holster is smooth on
7
the inside of the holster, without any obstructions or irregular surfaces that
might enter the trigger guard.
(Id.) (emphasis added).
In sum, Defendants have satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating an
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of
law due to the foregoing evidence. Bones, 366 F.3d at 875. Defendants not only point to
a lack of evidence for Plaintiffs’ on the element of whether Defendants’ product is
defective, but Defendants also present evidence that tends to disprove Plaintiffs’ claim.
See Adler, 144 F.3d at 671 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325) (movant who does not bear
the ultimate burden of persuasion need not disprove other party’s claims; rather, movant
need simply point the court to a lack of evidence for other party on an essential element
of that party’s claim).
Mr. Marx analysis of Defendants’ product showed that due to the holster’s 3layer, nylon laminate design, the holster provides users with a safe and secure means
of transporting firearms on their person. (Doc. # 65-1 at 38.) Further, Mr. Shain’s
analysis of Defendants’ product showed that the holster’s design is safe because it
prevents a manual safety on a pistol from being accidentally disengaged and the holster
also prevents a pistol’s trigger from being accidentally pulled while the pistol is inside
the holster. (Id. at 47.) Thus, the evidence Defendants present demonstrates that, on
balance, the benefits of Defendants’ design are not outweighed by the risk of danger
inherent the challenged design because the holster does not create a risk that a pistol
might accidentally discharge while inside the holster. See Barton, 938 P.2d at 537
(citation omitted).
8
b.
Plaintiff’s response
Because Defendants, as the movants in the instant motion, met their initial
burden, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’
holster was “sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition such that the trigger could
accidentally be pulled while in the holster.” (Doc. # 71 at 6.) In support of their
argument, Plaintiffs make the following factual assertions:
•
upon discovering her, Decedent’s father found the pistol in its holster (Doc. # 711 at 6);
•
law enforcement officers at the scene noted that Plaintiffs’ pistol was secured in
its holster, with the retention strap fastened (id. at 18); and
•
the pistol’s trigger was entirely covered by the holster’s nylon material (Doc. # 71
at 6).
Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiffs argue that the “undisputed evidence supports a
finding that the [g]un was within its holster when it fired.” (Id.)
c.
Analysis
In order to satisfy their burden of production at the summary judgment stage,
Plaintiffs must raise facts establishing a genuine dispute as to whether Defendants’
holster is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the end user according to
the risk-benefit test. Barton, 938 P.2d at 537 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argue that “a
reasonable jury here could weigh these facts and make a determination that a properly
9
designed holster should prevent any trigger pull sufficient to cause a gun to discharge.”
(Doc. # 71 at 6.) However, Plaintiffs’ argument fails for two reasons.
First, Plaintiffs fail to establish that Defendants’ holster has an unsafe product
defect under the risk-benefit test. According to the risk-benefit test, the relevant inquiry
is not what consumers expect, but “whether the benefits of a particular design outweigh
the risks of harm [the design] presents to consumers.” Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 406
P.3d 845, 847 (Colo. 2007) (citations omitted). However, Plaintiffs did not produce any
facts pertaining to the Armentrout factors that weigh a product’s risks versus its benefits.
See Armentrout, 842 P.2d at 184 (outlining seven factors relevant to risk-benefit
analysis). Additionally, whether Defendants’ holster is not reasonably safe depends on
“technical, scientific information” related to, inter alia: the thickness of the material used
in the holster’s design; whether the holster prevents a manual safety from
unintentionally disengaging; and whether the design of the holster might cause a pistol’s
trigger to be unintentionally pulled. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there are no facts in
the record showing that Defendants’ product presents a significant risk of harm to users.
Plaintiffs allege that the holster’s defect is evidenced by the fact that a pistol accidentally
discharged while it was inside the holster. However, the relevant facts do not lead to the
conclusion that the holster is defective. Even assuming arguendo that the pistol
accidentally discharged, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence showing that it was the
holster’s design that was responsible for the pistol discharging as opposed to the pistol
itself, for example. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not produced facts showing that a manual
10
safety may be unintentionally disengaged while a pistol is in the holster, and Plaintiffs
have not produced facts showing that a pistol’s trigger may be unintentionally pulled
while the pistol is inside the holster. Rather, Plaintiffs’ argument assumes that the
holster is defective because the pistol was found inside the holster without any
additional evidence of an unsafe defect. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not met their burden
of production because Plaintiffs have not raised facts showing that Defendants’ holster
has a defect that renders it unreasonably unsafe according to the risk-benefit test.
Second, Plaintiffs factual assertions neither address nor rebut the facts raised by
Defendants. 1 As opposed to raising facts disputing the findings of Defendants’
experts—which show that the holster was not actually defective in the way that Plaintiffs
allege—Plaintiffs only repeat the allegations they raise in their complaint. (Doc. # 35 at
¶¶ 12, 15, 16.) However, the nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its pleadings to
satisfy its burden of production. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Without additional factual
support—which Plaintiffs did not produce—Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants’ holster
is defective because a pistol accidentally discharged while inside the holster cannot
survive Defendants’ factual findings showing that such an event could not have been
related to its holster’s design. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy Plaintiffs’
The Court notes that in their response to the instant motion, Plaintiffs make a conclusory
statement that “[t]he soft sides of the holster allowed CBI specialists to disengage the safety and
fire the gun while in the holster.” (Doc. # 71 at 4.) However, Plaintiffs do not support the
foregoing statement with any facts in the record. Plaintiffs do cite to their own Responses to
Requests for Admission, which was produced in Movants’ Appendix (Doc. # 65-1 at 36), but the
statement contained in that document is essentially identical to the statement in Plaintiffs’
response, and it contains no additional support or authority. Therefore, it is insufficient to create
a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to whether Defendants’ holster is defective.
1
11
burden to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial with
regard to whether Defendants’ holster is defectively designed.
2.
Negligence
A claim for negligence in Colorado requires a plaintiff to prove (1) the defendant
owed a legal duty of care; (2) the defendant breached its duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered
an injury; and (4) the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. Vigil v. Franklin,
103 P.3d 322, 325 (Colo. 2004). Where a plaintiff alleges negligence in a product
liability action, the “plaintiff must [also] prove that the product was defective.” Mile Hi
Concrete, Inc. v. Matz, 842 P.2d 198, 205 (Colo. 1992). To determine whether a product
is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the end user, courts employ the
risk-benefit test. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 406 P.3d 845, 847 (Colo. 2017).
Accordingly, courts must employ the risk-benefit test in a products liability action when
analyzing either a strict liability claim or a negligence claim. Id. at 852 (citing Camacho
v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 741 P.2d 1240, 1245 (“[W]hen a product is not reasonably
safe a products liability action may be maintained”); Mile Hi, 842 P.2d at 1245 (holding
plaintiff must prove product was defective “[r]egardless of whether a products liability
action is grounded in negligence or strict liability”)).
In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that in a design-defect case where,
as here, the dangerousness of the design is defined primarily by technical, scientific
information, “the risk-benefit test essentially subsumes the issue of negligence.” Id.
(emphasis added) (citing Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 447-48 (Colo. 2005) (explaining
that a determination of negligence requires consideration of multiple factors, including
12
“the risk involved, the foreseeability of the injury weighed against the social utility of the
actor’s conduct,” and the burden of guarding against harm)). Reasonableness is “a
negligence concept" and, thus, "the risk-benefit test ‘includes language which is rooted
in negligence.’” Id. (citing Camacho, 741 P.2d at 1245) (quoting Fibreboard Corp. v.
Fenton, 845 P.2d 1168, 1173 (Colo. 1993)). Therefore “[a] manufacturer is not negligent
for designing a reasonably safe product.” Id.
This Court has found that Defendants have established that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact with regard to whether their product is defective. See supra
Section 1(a). Defendants have produced expert analysis showing that their holster is
reasonably safe and does not allow either a manual safety to be unintentionally
disengaged or for a trigger to be unintentionally pulled while a pistol is in the holster. Id.
Plaintiffs, by contrast, have not produced facts that challenge either the analysis or
conclusions of Defendants’ experts. See supra Section 1(c). Therefore, because
Defendants have established that their holster is reasonably safe and because “[a]
manufacturer is not negligent for designing a reasonably safe product,” Plaintiffs’
negligence claim fails as a matter of law. See Walker, 406 P.3d at 852.
13
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants Vista Outdoor, Inc., Vista
Outdoor Operations, LLC, and Vista Outdoor Sales, LLC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 65) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with
judgment entered against Plaintiffs and in favor of Defendants. It is
FURTHER ORDERD that Defendants shall have their costs.
DATED: October 26, 2018
BY THE COURT:
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?