HARRISBURG – Bankruptcy proceedings involving firearms manufacturer Remington have stayed a product liability lawsuit from the mother and grandfather of a minor injured by the allegedly errant discharge of a rifle, filed against both it and DuPont.
Jessica Olinick, David Farence and minor plaintiff C.O. of Dauphin County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on July 8 versus Remington Arms Company, LLC and Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. of Madison, N.C., and Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, of Wilmington, Del.
“C.O. was severely injured on Dec. 1, 2018, when the Remington Model 700 Bolt Action Rifle fired when the safety was moved from the ‘On Safe’ to the ‘Off Safe’ position, without a trigger pull. The rifle was and is owned by [plaintiff] Farence. The rifle was manufactured and sold by defendants with a fire control or trigger system known as the ‘Walker’ fire control or trigger system. The manufacturing date code on the rifle is May 1969,” the suit stated.
“The rifle, with the Walker fire control system, is unreasonably dangerous and defective in that it may, and in this instance did, fire without a trigger pull. The rifle was manufactured and sold by defendants with a ‘bolt lock’ mechanism which prevents the bolt from being opened to unload the rifle when the safety is in the ‘On Safe’ position. The bolt lock forces the user to move the safety from the ‘On Safe’ position to the ‘Off Safe’ position to unload the rifle.”
The suit stated the bolt lock in the rifle “is unreasonably dangerous and defective in that it forces the gun handler to release the safety to unload the rifle and the rifle is prone to fire without a trigger pull when the safety is released.”
“During the morning of Dec. 1, 2018, C.O. and his grandfather, Farence, were deer hunting on Farence’s property in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. At some point in the morning, C.O. got cold and drove Farence’s John Deere Gator to Farence’s residence on the property. Later that morning Farence called C.O. and asked him to come pick him up so he could eat lunch. C.O. drove the Gator to the deer stand and to pick up Farence,” the suit said.
“C.O. then drove the Gator, with Farence in the passenger seat, to Farence’s residence. The rifle was in the back of the Gator. When they arrived at the residence, Farence stepped out of the Gator and went to unload the rifle. Farence moved the safety from ‘On Safe’ to ‘Off Safe’ and the rifle discharged. The rifle discharged immediately upon release of the safety without a trigger pull. Farence is certain that he did not pull the trigger. The bullet passed through the side of the box on the Gator and struck C.O. in the right side causing severe injury.”
Plaintiff C.O.’s damages include past and future medical expense, mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disability, disfigurement, loss of established course of life, emotional and mental distress and other general and special damages in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial – while plaintiff Farence’s damages include emotional and mental distress and anguish, property damage, and other general and special damages in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial.
UPDATE
However, the case took a turn due to Remington’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in an Alabama federal court in July.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Yvette Kane ordered the case stayed on Aug. 28, pending the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings.
“Upon notification that defendants Remington Arms Company, LLC and Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. have filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, it is ordered that the above-captioned action is stayed pending the resolution of the Remington defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings,” Kane said.
“It is further ordered that the parties shall file a report as to the status of the Remington defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings within 90 days of the date of this order and every subsequent 90 days.”
For counts of strict products liability, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, general, special and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, costs and expenses and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan S. Ramler and Richard A. Ramler of Ramler Law Office in Belgrade, Mont., plus Scott B. Cooper of Schmidt Kramer, in Harrisburg.
The defendants are represented by Daniel S. Altschuler of Post & Schell, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-01164
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com