ILNews

Too much time has passed for man to sue after rifle accident, 7th Circuit says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A lawsuit against a rifle manufacturer by an injured user was filed outside Indiana’s 10-year statute of repose for products-liability actions, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. The man’s modification to his rifle did not extend the time he had to sue.  

Adam Hartman received a muzzleloading rifle gun from his father in 1994. In 2008, Hartman installed a kit on his gun that was sold by the maker of the rifle that modified the muzzleloader and enabled it to ignite new propellants more reliably. The day after he added the kit, the gun unexpectedly discharged while he was trying to load it, causing the ramrod and a patched round ball to pass through his hands and arm.

He sued KR Warranty, the rifle and kit maker, and EBSCO Industries Inc., which had stock in KR Warranty, and another company. The District Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the statute of repose in Indiana barred his negligence and strict liability claims.

Hartman’s lawsuit could survive if he could prove the lawsuit fell under one of the two exceptions to the statute: where a manufacturer refurbishes a product to extend its useful life or where a defective new component is incorporated into the old product.

His lawsuit fails under the first exception because he could not show the kit he used to upgrade his rifle in 2008 extended the useful life of his gun. The judges also doubted that the statute of repose could ever be reset by a user-installed component like the conversion kit in question.

And the lawsuit also can’t survive under the second exception, the 7th Circuit pointed out. Its survival depends on testimony by Hartman’s expert, Steven Howard, that was excluded by the District Court. Howard had testified, among other things, that the upgraded conversion kit breech plug did increase the likelihood of latent embers getting trapped and prematurely igniting the newly loaded propellant. But the District Court didn’t admit this testimony because his theory wasn’t supported by evidence.

The 7th Circuit also pointed out that even if Hartman were able to survive summary judgment against KR Warranty, he would have no case against EBSCO, as that company had nothing to do with the rifle or the conversion kit.

The case is Adam Hartman v. EBSCO Industries Inc., et al, 13-3398.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT