## Facts

- Ann Culpepper purchased a Weihrauch-manufactured handgun in 1968; after her 1977 divorce she kept it for personal use.
- She routinely stored the handgun in a leather pouch in her car’s glove compartment or beside her bed and customarily kept it loaded.
- On March 5, 1996, while bringing the handgun, her purse, and groceries into her house, she dropped the handgun.
- The handgun discharged when dropped, striking Culpepper in the abdomen and causing severe injuries, including the removal of a kidney and portions of her intestines.
- Culpepper sued the manufacturer alleging design and/or manufacturing defects, focusing on an allegedly defective hammerblock (hammerlock) safety.
- The manufacturer asserted affirmative defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and product misuse.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Culpepper assumed the risk of injury by knowingly and voluntarily encountering the specific danger posed by the alleged hammerblock defect.
2. Whether the record supported a triable issue that Culpepper failed to use reasonable care for her own safety and that such negligence proximately contributed to her injury (contributory negligence).
3. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute that Culpepper used or handled the handgun (including the hammerblock safety) in a manner not intended or not reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer (product misuse).

## Decision

- The court granted Culpepper’s motions for summary judgment on assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and product misuse.
- The manufacturer was barred from presenting those three affirmative defenses at trial.
- The product-liability claims based on alleged defect and causation remained for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- In diversity cases, federal courts apply federal procedural law and the forum state’s substantive law.
- Under Alabama law, assumption of risk requires proof that the plaintiff knew of the specific defect and danger, appreciated the risk, and voluntarily exposed herself to it; general awareness that a product (or guns in general) can be dangerous is insufficient.
- Alabama contributory negligence requires evidence that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and that the failure proximately contributed to the injury.
- Product misuse requires evidence that the plaintiff used the product in a way not intended and not reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer; ordinary, foreseeable handling does not establish misuse.
- Foreseeable consumer handling of a product, including accidental drops, cannot support defenses premised on abnormal use absent evidence of specific abnormal conduct (such as defeating a safety feature).

## Conclusion

The court held that, on the summary-judgment record, the manufacturer lacked evidence that Culpepper knew and accepted the specific risk posed by an alleged hammerblock defect, acted unreasonably in a way that proximately caused her injury, or used the handgun in an unintended and unforeseeable manner; accordingly, it removed assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and misuse from the case.


Culpepper v. Hermann Weihrauch KG, 991 F. Supp. 1397 (M.D. Ala. 1997)