## Facts

- John Gower Jr. was injured in December 1997 when his Savage Model 99C rifle discharged while he was attempting to unload it, shooting his foot.
- Gower alleged the rifle fired despite being in the “safe” position, which was intended to prevent firing.
- The rifle was manufactured in 1987 by Savage Industries, Inc. and sold through a retailer in 1989; Gower bought it without the original box, instructions, or manual.
- Savage Industries later entered bankruptcy and sold assets, including the Model 99 product line, to Savage Arms, Inc., which continued producing that line; Savage Sports Corporation was also sued as a related successor entity.
- Plaintiffs alleged four product defects: (1) inability to unload with the safety engaged (unloading design defect), (2) lack of a detent system in the safety (detent design defect), (3) a metal ridge interfering with the safety mechanism (manufacturing defect), and (4) inadequate warnings.
- Plaintiffs asserted strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and punitive damages; Debra Gower asserted loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs relied on expert testimony (James Mason) regarding alleged safety-mechanism defects; a separate motion to exclude his testimony was pending.

## Issues

1. Whether Savage Arms, Inc. (and related entities) could face liability as a successor under Pennsylvania’s product-line exception for a product manufactured by Savage Industries, Inc.
2. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on strict liability theories for (a) unloading design, (b) detent design, (c) manufacturing defect, and (d) inadequate warnings.
3. Whether the record supported claims for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, punitive damages, and derivative loss of consortium.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was denied on successor liability because a jury could find the defendants continued the predecessor’s product line and benefited from its goodwill.
- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on strict liability based on the unloading design defect and on inadequate-warnings theory.
- Summary judgment was denied (without prejudice to renewal after the expert-admissibility ruling) on strict liability claims based on the detent design defect and the alleged manufacturing defect affecting the safety mechanism.
- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on all negligence claims, material and negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and punitive damages.
- Summary judgment was denied (without prejudice to renewal) on Debra Gower’s loss-of-consortium claim because it remained tied to surviving strict liability claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, an asset purchaser is generally not liable for the seller’s torts, but may be liable under the product-line exception when it continues the predecessor’s product line such that a factfinder could infer continuity and associated benefit.
- At summary judgment, the court must view evidence in the nonmovant’s favor; where defect and causation depend on technical proof about a product’s safety mechanism, admissible expert testimony can create a triable issue.
- A strict-liability design theory framed as a “safety trade-off” requires proof that the challenged design renders the product defective under applicable Pennsylvania standards; unsupported assertions are insufficient.
- Failure-to-warn liability requires proof of a warning defect attributable to the manufacturer and causation; where warnings were shipped with the product but omitted at retail sale, and causation is not shown, the claim fails.
- Punitive damages under Pennsylvania law require evidence of outrageous conduct or conscious disregard of a known risk; absent such proof attributable to the defendant, punitive damages are not available.
- Loss of consortium is derivative and survives only to the extent the underlying claim survives.

## Conclusion

The court allowed plaintiffs to proceed toward trial on successor liability and on strict liability limited to alleged defects in the rifle’s safety mechanism (detent design and a claimed manufacturing flaw), while dismissing the unloading-design, warnings, negligence, misrepresentation, warranty, and punitive-damages claims; the surviving claims remained subject to the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert testimony.


Gower v. Savage Arms, Inc., 166 F. Supp. 2d 240 (E.D. Pa. 2001)