758 F.3d 810
7th Cir.2014Background
- In 1994 Hartman received a Knight (LK-93 Wolverine) muzzleloader manufactured by Modern Muzzleloading (later under KR Warranty/EBSCO). He fired it ~500–600 times over the years.
- The original rifle used a #11 percussion cap; newer Pyrodex pellets require a hotter #209 primer.
- In November 2008 Hartman purchased and self-installed KR Warranty’s Knight 209 Primer Conversion Kit (converted the rifle to a #209 primer system).
- While sighting in the day after installation, Hartman loaded Pyrodex pellets and a patched round ball, failed to swab the barrel between shots, and the rifle unexpectedly discharged, injuring his hands and forearm.
- Hartman sued KR Warranty (and EBSCO as corporate parent) for negligence and strict liability; district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on Indiana’s 10-year statute of repose (injury occurred 14 years after original sale).
- Court considered two repose exceptions: (1) manufacturer refurbishment that extends useful life, and (2) incorporation of a defective new component; it affirmed summary judgment, excluding key portions of plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert/Kumho principles.
Issues
| Issue | Hartman’s Argument | KR Warranty’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion kit reset Indiana’s statute of repose as a "reconstruction/reconditioning" that extended the rifle’s useful life | Kit upgraded rifle (accuracy, reliability, velocity) and thereby effectively created a new/longer-lived rifle | Kit did not affect barrel/bore (the true determinant of muzzleloader useful life); mere performance upgrade does not extend useful life | Held for KR Warranty — kit did not extend useful life; repose not reset |
| Whether a defective new component exception applies because the conversion kit (or its warnings) introduced a new risk | Kit design (recessed breech face) and lack of warning increased latent ember risk; failure to include a specialized cleaning jag made kit defective | Recessed face was necessary for #209 primers and not shown to increase latent-ember risk; any warning duty would have arisen in 1994 if risk preexisted | Held for KR Warranty — plaintiff failed to show kit increased existing risk; repose not reset |
| Admissibility of plaintiff’s expert (Steven Howard) to prove increased ember risk and to propose an alternate jag | Howard opined the recessed breech plug retained embers and designed an alternate jag to clean it | Howard’s opinions lacked testing, peer review, error-rate analysis, or industry acceptance; his jag was untested and inoperable | District court’s exclusion affirmed under Daubert/Kumho for lack of reliability and relevance |
| Liability of corporate parent EBSCO for KR Warranty’s product | Implied liability by ownership/acquisition of KR’s corporate predecessor | EBSCO acquired KR stock in 1998 but did not operate KR; KR continued separate operations; no basis to impute liability | Held for EBSCO — no grounds to pierce corporate separateness; plaintiff waived further challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 418 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 1981) (Indiana statute of repose bars suits if damages occur more than ten years after product placed in commerce)
- Richardson v. Gallo Equip. Co., 990 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1993) (exceptions to statute of repose: refurbishment extending useful life and incorporation of defective component)
- Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2011) (Daubert framework for expert admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert principles apply to technical and non-scientific expert testimony)
- Black v. Henry Pratt Co., 778 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1985) (no repose reset where new component did not cause injury)