This product liability lawsuit involves Plaintiff’s use of a single-shot Thompson/Center Encore Pro Hunter rifle with a barrel chambered in .460 S&W caliber. Plaintiff had purchased and installed this new barrel in 2017, and he proceeded to use the rifle without incident for the next four years, firing it on at least thirty separate occasions without incident. However, on October 9, 2021, while Plaintiff was attempting to fire a second shot from a shooting bench, the barrel on the rifle was damaged causing the rear forearm screw to be ejected from the rifle and fracture the forearm.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against Thompson/Center alleging that the barrel was defectively designed and/or manufactured and that Thompson/Center otherwise failed to warn. During discovery, Plaintiff identified Ryan Spence as a witness. Spence is a gunsmith who visually examined the rifle for approximately two hours and then sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email stating that the incident was caused by Thompson/Center improperly drilling the hole for the rear forearm screw all the way through the barrel.
Defendant filed a motion to exclude Spence from testifying as his opinions did not pass muster under Rule 702.
Firearms Expert Witness
Ryan Spence is a graduate of the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School who worked his way up to become the head gunsmith of the Remington premier warranty center for the east coast. He has performed warranty service for Weatherby, Henry, Marlin, and other firearm manufacturers. He now owns and operates Spence Gunsmithing.
Discussion by the Court
To begin with, Defendant argued that Spence was not a metallurgist and had no experience designing barrels.
The Court decided that Spence’s report did not provide the key handholds of Rule 702.
Reliability
Spence did not examine a comparable exemplar barrel
In his first conclusion, Spence wrote that “the cause of this weapons failure was due to the rear forearm screw hole being drilled all the way through the barrel.” Spence did not describe the methods he employed to arrive at this opinion. He had taken notes during his investigation, but he had not preserved them. However, it was clear from his testimony what Spence did not do: he did not examine a comparable exemplar barrel; did not perform any modeling or casting; did not perform any magnetized testing; and did not take any x-ray or other images of the barrel. Spence’s report also contained no measurements or other analysis. It did not explain in any way what his inspection method had entailed.
Spence did not offer any comparison to establish what that industry standard was
In his second conclusion, Spence opined that the screw hole “was a very obvious manufacturing mistake as it was industry standard to drill no more than 2/3 the thickness of the barrel when drilling and tapping barrels.” However, Spence did not offer any comparison to establish what that industry standard was. He did not explain why the claimed manufacturing mistake was obvious, and he did not explain how or why such a mistake would have evaded Defendant’s product testing. Spence never investigated or considered Defendant’s testing during the manufacturing process to determine whether it was flawed. Furthermore, Spence did not investigate and did not know Defendant’s manufacturing process for the subject barrel.
Spence did not explain his methodology for his conclusion that his identified defect was the “only cause of failure ”
In his third conclusion, Spence wrote that Defendants had drilled “at the very rear of the barrel where chamber pressures would be the highest. In our opinion, this was the only cause of failure for this rifle.” However, Spence did not explain his methodology for his conclusion that his identified defect was the “only cause of failure.” In fact, he recognized that there were many other likely causes for barrel failure. He testified that the barrel failure might have been due to a user loosening the forearm screw; an obstruction in the barrel; using an aftermarket screw made of a different material; using over-pressurized ammunition; or making post-production alterations to the barrel that changed its specifications.
Held
The Court granted Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Ryan Spence.
Key Takeaway:
Spence’ inspection lasted about two hours. He concluded that Defendants were responsible for the barrel’s misfire and Plaintiff’s ensuing injuries. Spence did not examine a comparable exemplar barrel; did not perform any modeling or casting; did not perform any magnetized testing; and did not take any x-ray or other images of the barrel. Spence never investigated or considered Defendant’s testing during the manufacturing process to determine whether it was flawed. He did not explain his methodology for his conclusion that his identified defect was the “only cause of failure.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | James V. Thompson/Center Arms |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv1781 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Ohio Northern |
| Order Date: | March 28, 2024 |
Leave a Reply