O'Neal Ex Rel. Estate of O'Neal v. Remington Arms Co.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17831
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Remington manufactured the Model 700 .243 bolt-action rifle in 1971 using the Walker trigger, a design Remington knew could permit a discharge when the safety is moved from "safe" to "fire" without pulling the trigger.
- The Walker trigger relies on a minute (.01–.025 in.) engagement between the connector and sear and has no physical attachment between connector and trigger, allowing foreign debris to misalign the connector.
- Remington internal documents (1979) acknowledged that about 1% of pre-1975 Model 700s were susceptible to inadvertent firing on safety release and declined to recall.
- The rifle in question was used by various owners without incident from the mid-1980s until November 9, 2008, when it discharged as the safety was moved to fire, killing Lanny O’Neal. The rifle was destroyed by the plaintiff before suit was filed.
- Plaintiff O’Neal presented circumstantial evidence and expert opinion (Charles Powell) that the Walker trigger’s design/manufacturing defect could explain the accidental discharge and that the rifle likely was not altered after manufacture; the district court granted summary judgment for Remington.
- The Eighth Circuit majority reversed, holding South Dakota law permits circumstantial proof of a pre-manufacture defect and O’Neal produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a jury question; a dissent would have affirmed because the destroyed rifle prevented definitive expert proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may prove a products defect and causation by circumstantial evidence | O’Neal: South Dakota law allows circumstantial proof that the Walker trigger design/manufacturing defect caused the discharge | Remington: Plaintiff cannot prove defect/cause without the rifle; destruction prevents proof of pre-manufacture defect or post-manufacture alteration | Held: Yes — circumstantial evidence may suffice; evidence here creates a genuine issue for trial |
| Whether plaintiff showed the defect existed when rifle left Remington’s control | O’Neal: Remington documents, expert opinion, and the rifle’s long trouble-free use followed by sudden discharge support inference defect existed from manufacture | Remington: Cannot prove rifle retained original Walker trigger or that it left factory in defective condition | Held: Court: evidence supports reasonable inference defect existed at manufacture; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether plaintiff showed no post-manufacture alteration that could explain the firing | O’Neal: Ownership/use history (mid-1980s–2008) without incidents and expert testimony that alterations would cause frequent misfires support no intervening alteration | Remington: Gap between manufacture and mid-1980s leaves possibility of alteration; destroyed rifle prevents inspection | Held: Court: circumstantial record (usage history + expert) is sufficient to rebut alteration defense at summary judgment |
| Whether alternative grounds (Daubert exclusion of expert; spoliation sanction) justify affirmance | O’Neal: not addressed on appeal (district court did not rule) | Remington: challenge Powell’s testimony and seek dismissal for destroying rifle | Held: Court: declines to reach these issues; remands for district court to address them first |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202 (8th Cir. 2000) (summary-judgment fact-viewing standard)
- Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. v. Soczynski, 765 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Crandell v. Larkin & Jones Appliance Co., Inc., 334 N.W.2d 31 (S.D. 1983) (South Dakota permits circumstantial proof of defect and causation)
- Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251 (S.D. 1976) (circumstantial proof may establish defect at time product left defendant’s control)
- Peterson v. Safway Steel Scaffolds Co., 400 N.W.2d 909 (S.D. 1987) (plaintiff must show no post-manufacture alteration defeating engineered safety)
- Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 737 N.W.2d 397 (S.D. 2007) (plaintiff must show defect, causation, and rule out alteration)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barton Solvents, Inc., 855 N.W.2d 145 (S.D. 2014) (accident alone insufficient to prove defect absent other proof)
- Lewy v. Remington Arms Co., 836 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir. 1988) (prior case considering similar Model 700 defect claims)
- Ahmann v. United Air Lines, Inc., 313 F.2d 274 (8th Cir. 1963) (jury’s role in choosing among competing inferences)
- Red River Freethinkers v. City of Fargo, 679 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2012) (prudential principle to remand unresolved factual issues)
- Dodd v. United States, 614 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2010) (remand for district court to address merits when not previously decided)
- Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. Marks, 465 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2006) (declining to decide issues the district court did not resolve)