## Facts

- Charles Lane purchased a brand-new TriStar Gentry double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun manufactured by Tristar Sporting Arms, Ltd.
- Lane removed the shotgun from its original packaging, gave fourteen-year-old D.K. an hour-long tutorial on its use, and fired the shotgun about ten times during the lesson.
- Lane then loaned the shotgun to D.K. to use for hunting.
- The next day, after hunting, D.K. got on an all-terrain vehicle to ride home with the shotgun still loaded and the safety mechanism in the “on” position.
- With the safety “on,” the shotgun was supposed to be unable to fire.
- D.K. placed the loaded shotgun across his lap while driving and kept both hands on the ATV’s handlebars.
- While the shotgun was on D.K.’s lap, it discharged once; that discharge moved the barrel so that it pointed toward D.K.’s left leg.
- The shotgun then discharged a second time, and the second discharge caused significant injury to D.K.’s left leg.
- Lane retrieved the shotgun from the scene and observed that the safety mechanism was still in the “on” position.
- Lane test-fired the shotgun and found that it could fire while the safety was “on.”
- Two state natural-resource officers and the plaintiff’s expert witness were also able to fire the shotgun with the safety in the “on” position.
- D.K.’s mother, Margaret Gardner, sued Tristar under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA), alleging two defects: (1) the shotgun could fire with the safety engaged and (2) both barrels could fire with a single trigger pull.
- Gardner offered two causation explanations: accidental trigger activation (such as by clothing) and a claimed spontaneous discharge tied to debris within the firing mechanism.
- It was undisputed that D.K. did not read the shotgun’s manual.

## Issues

1. Whether Gardner produced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue that the shotgun’s design (as a product line) was defective and that a design defect proximately caused D.K.’s injuries under the IPLA.
2. Whether Gardner produced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue that this particular shotgun had a manufacturing defect (a deviation from intended specifications) that proximately caused D.K.’s injuries.
3. Whether Gardner’s failure-to-warn claim could survive summary judgment when D.K. did not read the manual and Gardner lacked evidence that different warnings would have prevented the injury.
4. Whether Gardner’s implied-warranty claim could proceed where it relied on the same defect allegations and did not identify an independent warranty basis.

## Decision

- The court granted Tristar’s motion for summary judgment on the design-defect claim.
- The court denied Tristar’s motion for summary judgment on the strict-liability manufacturing-defect claim.
- The court granted Tristar’s motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim.
- The court granted Tristar’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of implied warranty claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under the IPLA, a plaintiff must present evidence that a claimed defect existed and that the defect was a proximate cause of the injury.
- A design-defect theory requires evidence tied to the product’s design as specified, not just proof that a single unit malfunctioned.
- A manufacturing defect may be shown by evidence that the particular product deviated from intended specifications or differed from other units, and that the deviation caused the harm.
- On summary judgment, repeated post-incident testing by multiple witnesses that reproduces the same malfunction can create a fact dispute on whether a manufacturing defect existed and caused the injury.
- A failure-to-warn claim requires proof of causation; when the user did not read the warnings or manual, a plaintiff generally cannot show that a different warning would have been read and would have prevented the accident.
- An implied-warranty claim that adds no separate factual or legal basis beyond the IPLA defect theories may be resolved with the related products-liability claims at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Gardner’s evidence—especially testing showing the shotgun could fire with the safety engaged—created a jury question on whether this specific shotgun had a manufacturing defect that caused D.K.’s injuries, but Gardner did not produce enough evidence to support a design-defect theory applicable to the product’s design as specified, could not show warning causation because D.K. never read the manual, and offered no independent basis to maintain an implied-warranty claim.


Gardner v. Tristar Sporting Arms, 2010 WL 3724190 (2010)