Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.
641 F.3d 635
5th Cir.2011Background
- Diversity action under Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) against Remington Arms for injuries from firing a Remington Model 710 rifle.
- Bolt-assembly pin designed to connect bolt head to bolt body; when missing, bolt can be out of battery, causing an explosion.
- District court found pin was missing before Matthews fired; Remington did not reasonably anticipate such use.
- Owner's manual instructs disassembly for cleaning and reinsertion of the pin; Matthews did not read the manual.
- Rifle was loaned through Matthews' mother-in-law; accident occurred after the bolt-assembly pin was removed and not reinstalled.
- Rifle had been tested and sold nearly 500,000 units; no prior incidents reported of firing without the pin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matthews' use of the rifle was reasonably anticipated under LPLA. | Matthews' use (firing with pin missing) was a reasonably anticipated use by an ordinary user. | Remington could not have anticipated firing without the pin; such use is outside the ordinary use. | Yes, use included missing-pin scenario; use deemed reasonably anticipated. |
| Whether the district court erred by focusing on missing-pin use rather than a broader, post-manufacture risk. | District court misapplied threshold using third-party removal as a legal presumption. | Court correctly limited analysis to threshold anticipated use. | Affirmed; district court's threshold use finding affirmed. |
| Whether Matthews' damages were proximately caused by an unreasonably dangerous design or inadequate warning, given the missing pin. | If reasonably anticipated use includes missing-pin firing, then design/warning may be unreasonably dangerous. | Liability depends on lack of reasonable anticipated use; if not, merits unresolved. | Remanded to address design and warning claims on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kampen v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 157 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc defining scope of use and reasonably anticipated use (jack case))
- Broussard v. Procter & Gamble Co., 517 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2008) (use of product contrary to warning not reasonably anticipated)
- Johnson v. Black & Decker U.S., Inc., 701 So.2d 1360 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1997) (use with missing guard not reasonably anticipated in Louisiana)
- Hunter v. Knoll Rig & Equipment Mfg. Co., 70 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 1995) (racking pipes in an obviously dangerous manner not reasonably anticipated)
- Delphen v. Department of Transportation & Development, 657 So.2d 328 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (borrowed/rode obviously dangerous bicycle not reasonably anticipated)