PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has granted a crossbow manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in dismissing a case brought by the widow of a man who was shot in the foot with the company’s device, finding that the absence of testimony at the moment of the incident precluded the case from going to trial.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson issued the ruling on April 2, in favor of Ravin Crossbows, LLC, and against plaintiff Grace Neebe.
“Decedent Dan Neebe [then 73 years old] was deer hunting with a Ravin crossbow on Christopher Green’s property on Nov. 1, 2017. At some point, Mr. Neebe shot himself in the foot with his crossbow, sustaining a serious injury. He pulled the bolt out of his foot, climbed out of the tree stand, walked across the property to his car, and drove himself to the hospital. He was alone the whole time,” Wolson said.
“On his drive to Doylestown Hospital, which took approximately 25-30 minutes, Mr. Neebe made two calls, one to Mrs. Neebe and one to Mr. Green. He did not reach either of them, so he left voicemails. In the voicemails, which the parties have not produced, Mr. Neebe told them that the bow fired but he did not know what happened.”
Green returned Mr. Neebe’s call and spoke with him as he was driving to the hospital. Mr. Neebe reiterated that he had shot himself in the foot, and that he was not sure what happened.
Subsequently, Mrs. Neebe and Mr. Green both drove to the hospital, where they located Mr. Neebe approximately an hour after the incident. Mr. Neebe again restated that he did not know what happened, and that the crossbow had just fired.
“Mrs. Neebe retained Dr. Stephen Batzer as a liability expert. Dr. Batzer provided a report that gives detailed analysis of a potential design defect in Ravin crossbows and how that defect could cause a Ravin crossbow to misfire in some situations without a trigger pull. But nowhere in the report does Dr. Batzer say a design defect in Mr. Neebe’s crossbow caused Mr. Neebe’s injury. Nor does Dr. Batzer say why Mr. Neebe’s crossbow fired,” Wolson said.
“Mrs. Neebe, both as the Administratrix of Mr. Neebe’s estate and in her own capacity, filed this product liability action against Ravin Crossbows, LLC, Venatics, Inc., Compass Diversified Holdings, The Compass Group, Velocity Outdoor, Inc. and Crossman on Oct. 22, 2019. After discovery, Ravin filed this summary judgment motion and a motion to exclude Dr. Batzer’s testimony.”
What became the defining point in the matter, according to Wolson, is that Mr. Neebe, died of unrelated causes before his testimony about the incident could be taken.
The absence of that crucial component doomed the plaintiff’s case, the judge indicated, and Mr. Neebe’s voicemails were not sufficient to be counted as excited utterances or present sense impressions, nor was the expert’s report specific enough.
“Mr. Neebe’s statements in voicemails and in person to Mrs. Neebe and Mr. Green do not qualify as statements of present sense impression for the same reason that they do not qualify as excited utterances: The passage of time, coupled with circumstantial evidence demonstrating Mr. Neebe’s cool-headed, rational demeanor,” Wolson said.
“Given the way that Mr. Neebe gathered himself and conducted himself after shooting himself, the Court concludes that Mr. Neebe’s statements occurred in a context where he could reflect on the incident and, consciously or unconsciously, fabricate his statements.”
“Dr. Batzer’s expert report does not create a disputed factual question about causation. The report opines on a potential defect of Ravin crossbows. It offers no evidence that such a defect caused Mr. Neebe’s crossbow to fire.”
According to Wolson, the case as it stood was not appropriate to proceed to trial.
“Mrs. Neebe’s claims suffer from the fact that she has no one available to attest to what happened when Mr. Neebe’s crossbow fired. Because she lacks any evidence as to that key piece of her claims, she has no basis to proceed to trial. The Court will grant Ravin’s motion for summary judgment,” Wolson said.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-01634
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com