Gower v. Savage Arms, Inc.

John Gower (plaintiff), an experienced firearms user, purchased a Savage Model 99C rifle from a retail store in 1989. The rifle was manufactured by Savage Industries, Inc., in 1987. Although Savage Industries shipped its rifles in boxes containing instructions, the retailer sold the rifle without either. In 1988, Savage Industries filed for bankruptcy and transferred its Model 99C product line to Savage Arms, Inc. (defendant), which continued to manufacture the product line. In 1997, Gower was preparing to unload his rifle when it discharged, shooting him in the foot. The gun was in the “safe” position and should not have fired. Gower and his wife, Debra (plaintiff), sued Savage Arms, alleging that, as Savage Industries’ successor, Savage Arms faced liability for John’s injuries. The Gowers asserted multiple products-liability claims, alleging that: (1) the rifle was defective because not accompanied by warnings, (2) the rifle was defectively designed because it could not be unloaded in the “safe” position (unloading defect) and lacked a detent system (detent defect), and (3) the rifle was manufactured defectively because it had a metal ridge that caused the safety mechanism to regularly fail (manufacturing defect). An expert report by James Mason supported the detent-defect and manufacturing-defect claims. Mason opined that a detent system would make the rifle more user friendly. He also concluded that the metal ridge on Gower’s rifle was not present on a sample from the product line. Savage Arms moved for summary judgment and filed a Daubert motion contesting the admissibility of Mason’s expert opinion.