Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P purchased a handgun, manufactured by D, in 1968 as a gift for her then-husband. After her divorce in 1977, she kept the gun for personal protection. In the early 1990s, she began carrying the gun to work in her automobile. She kept the gun in a leather zippered pouch; it was her custom to store the gun either in her bedside table when she was home or in the glove compartment of her car while she was at work. After going to work, to her parents' house, and to the supermarket, P returned home. She had placed the gun in the glove compartment of her car when she left for work in the morning and did not remove it until she came home in the afternoon. P only remembers that she got out of the car, heard a shot, and felt pain. She does not remember how she attempted to carry the gun, along with her purse or her groceries, out of the car. The gun was found lying on the ground out of its pouch, about one or two feet away from the driver's seat. One witness saw an indentation on the dirt in the driveway that looked as if it had been made by the hammer spur of the handgun. The bullet injury required the removal of her right kidney and parts of her small intestine and colon. P sued D for design and manufacturing defects, warning defects, negligent assembly, and sale, negligent failure to warn wanton failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty. P claims the hammer block safety, a device on the gun which prevents 'drop fire' accidents was improperly designed and manufactured. D asserted the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and misuse of the product. P filed motions for summary judgment on these three defenses. D conceded that summary judgment should be granted as to the assumption-of-risk and misuse-of-product defenses.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co