Gardner v. Tristar Sporting Arms

Charles Lane owned a brand-new shotgun that had been manufactured by Tristar Sporting Arms, Ltd. (Tristar) (defendant). Lane took the shotgun out of its original packaging and showed 14-year-old DK how to use it. Lane then loaned the shotgun to DK for hunting. The next day, DK got on an all-terrain vehicle with the shotgun loaded and the shotgun’s safety mechanism in the on position. When in the on position, the safety mechanism was supposed to prevent the shotgun from firing. While the shotgun was on DK’s lap and DK had both hands on the vehicle’s handlebars, the shotgun discharged. This first shot moved the shotgun’s barrel and caused it to face DK’s left leg. The shotgun then discharged a second time, causing significant injury to DK’s leg. Later, Lane retrieved the shotgun from the scene and saw that the safety mechanism was still in the on position. Lane test-\fired the shotgun and discovered that it would fire with the safety on. Two state natural-resource officers and an expert witness were also able to fire the shotgun with the safety in the on position. DK’s mother, Margaret Gardner (plaintiff), sued Tristar, alleging that the shotgun had two defects: (1) it would fire with the safety mechanism on and (2) both barrels could be fired with a single trigger pull. Gardner theorized that DK’s clothing might have accidentally pulled the trigger. Gardner also presented expert testimony that debris in the shotgun’s firing mechanism might have caused the shotgun to discharge spontaneously without the trigger being pulled. Tristar moved for summary judgment, arguing that Gardner had not presented evidence that either of the two alleged defects (1) actually existed or (2) had proximately caused DK’s injury.