Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-23-05134/USCOURTS-ca10-23-05134-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

PATRICK OGLESBEE; KATHREN D. 

OGLESBEE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

GLOCK, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 23-5134

(D.C. No. 4:18-CV-00560-GKF-CDL)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Patrick Oglesbee purchased a used Glock pistol that had been modified after it 

left the possession and control of Glock, Inc. While providing firearm training, he

dropped the pistol, which fired when it hit the ground and shot him in the leg. With 

his wife, Kathren Oglesbee, he sued Glock, alleging products liability, failure to 

warn, and negligence. 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 27, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 1
2

Applying Oklahoma law, the district court granted summary judgment for 

Glock on all claims, holding that the pistol was not unreasonably dangerous because 

Glock provided adequate warnings about the risk of using a modified pistol. The 

Oglesbees appealed. 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History1

The Drop Fire Incident

Mr. Oglesbee, a certified firearms instructor, has “extensive firearms 

experience with hundreds of hours of training on various weapons systems.” App., 

Vol. I at 86; App., Vol. II at 476. While providing a firearm training, he attempted to 

holster the modified Glock pistol, but it fell to the ground and fired, shooting him in 

the leg. Mr. Oglesbee lost his leg from this “drop fire” incident.2

 

The Pistol and Modifications

Glock pistols contain the “Glock Safe Action System,” which includes a 

trigger safety, firing pin safety, and drop safety. The system automatically engages

after the pistol is fired to prevent unintentional discharges such as drop fires. 

1 On appeal from summary judgment, “we examine the record and all reasonable 

inferences that might be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party.” Pinkerton v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052, 1058 (10th Cir. 2009) 

(quotations omitted). 

2 A “drop fire” incident occurs “when a pistol is dropped or falls onto a surface and 

a round of ammunition is unintentionally discharged.” App., Vol. I at 82 n.2.

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 2
3 

Mr. Oglesbee purchased the pistol in 2012. The pistol had been modified with

“aftermarket” parts—a trigger spring, firing pin spring, firing pin safety spring, and 

internal connector piece—that differed from the corresponding Glock factory parts.3

 

The aftermarket trigger spring had more tension than its Glock counterpart. The 

aftermarket firing pin spring and firing pin safety spring had less tension. This 

combination of aftermarket parts prevented the trigger from returning to its fully 

forward position after firing and from re-engaging the trigger safety.4

 

The Warnings

Mr. Oglesbee received and reviewed the Glock Instructions for Use Manual for 

his pistol. It contains multiple warnings about unintentional discharges from 

modified pistols. The first warning straddles pages three and five: 

WARNING: 

GLOCK PISTOLS HAVE SEVERAL INTERNAL DESIGN 

FEATURES AND MECHANICAL SAFETIES, DESIGNED 

TO PREVENT AN ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE SHOULD 

THE PISTOL BE DROPPED OR RECEIVE A SEVERE 

BLOW TO THE MUZZLE, FRONT, OR BACK OF THE 

PISTOL. 

THEREFORE, EXTRA CARE AND STRICT 

ADHERENCE TO THE SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS AND 

OTHER INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS 

3

 Aftermarket parts for Glock pistols are made by other manufacturers. See App., 

Vol. II at 284, 286, 456. Thousands of aftermarket parts combinations can be used to 

modify Glock pistols. See id. at 278-79, 463-64. 

4

 Mr. Oglesbee also modified the pistol. But no party contends his modifications 

contributed to the drop fire. 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 3
4 

MANUAL BY THE GUN USER IS MANDATORY FOR 

MINIMIZING THE RISK OF ACCIDENTS. 

. . . THE PROPER AND SAFE FUNCTION OF THIS 

PISTOL IS 

* * * * 

BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT PARTS ARE NOT 

ALTERED OR MODIFIED, AND THAT THE PISTOL IS 

USED FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. 

App., Vol. I at 166-67.5

The Manual also warns that an ineffective trigger safety may lead to an 

unintentional discharge: 

WARNING: 

In case the trigger safety proves to be ineffective for any 

reason, DANGER of an unintentional discharge exists. THE 

WEAPON IS THEN TO BE IMMEDIATELY UNLOADED 

AND RESTRICTED FROM ANY FURTHER USE. MAKE 

SURE THAT YOUR WEAPON IS PROPERLY REPAIRED 

AND CHECKED BY GLOCK INC. AUTHORIZED 

PERSONNEL BEFORE USING IT AGAIN! 

Id. at 167.

The Manual further warns that “disassembly by the user” beyond basic field 

stripping to clean the gun “is neither required nor recommended, and should only be 

performed by a GLOCK-certified armorer.” Id. at 186.

6

 The Manual does not 

5

 As indicated by asterisks, the warning cuts off midsentence on page three of the 

Manual and resumes on page five, the next page in English. 

6

 “Field stripping” is “user-level, partial disassembly of a firearm that is performed 

without tools to allow for routine cleaning and lubrication of the major components.” 

App., Vol. I at 93 n.10, 185-87; App., Vol. II at 480. 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 4
5

provide instructions on how to remove and replace the trigger spring, firing pin 

spring, firing pin safety spring, or the internal connector piece. 

Testing Instructions

The Manual also contains instructions for inspecting the pistol and testing its 

safety features. It states that when “[p]erformed at regular intervals,” the testing 

instructions “can help to confirm that [the pistol] is functioning properly.” Id. at 188. 

The Manual provides 13 testing instructions and states that “[f]ailure of any of the 

following checks, which cannot be remedied by cleaning should be referred to 

GLOCK, Inc., your local GLOCK dealer, or a GLOCK-certified Armorer.” Id.

The testing instructions warn that if the “firing pin safety fails to keep the 

firing pin from moving forward” or if “the trigger safety fails to keep the trigger from 

moving rearward and the pistol dry fires DO NOT LOAD OR FIRE YOUR GLOCK 

PISTOL.” Id. These warnings emphasize that if the “trigger safety proves to be 

ineffective for any reason, DANGER of an unintentional discharge exists.” 

Id. at 167.

After he purchased the modified Glock and before the drop fire incident, 

Mr. Oglesbee reviewed the testing instructions and performed number 10, the 

“REASSEMBLY AND TRIGGER SAFETY CHECK”: 

Reassemble the pistol. BE SURE THAT THE PISTOL IS 

UNLOADED, and cycle the slide to reset the trigger to the 

forward position. With the pistol pointed in a safe direction, 

grasp the sides of the trigger (without touching or depressing 

the trigger safety) and attempt to pull the trigger to the rear. 

The trigger safety should prevent rearward movement of the

trigger, and the pistol should not dry fire.

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 5
6

Id. at 188; id. at 94, 156-58; App., Vol. II at 480. 

Mr. Oglesbee “only relied upon . . . instruction 10 to check the Trigger Safety 

engagement.” App., Vol. II at 500. He thus admits he did not rely on number 11, the 

“TRIGGER RESET TEST”: 

Being sure that the pistol is UNLOADED and pointed in a 

safe direction, pull the trigger and hold the trigger to the rear. 

You should hear and feel the firing pin fall. Pull the slide to 

the rear and release it, allowing it to snap forward. Now 

release the trigger. The trigger should reset to its forward 

position. Repeat several times. 

App., Vol. I at 188. 

B. Legal Background

“In a diversity case . . . the Erie doctrine requires federal courts to apply 

federal procedural law and state substantive law.” Banner Bank v. Smith, 30 F.4th 

1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 2022); see Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). 

As the parties agree, Oklahoma substantive law governs this case. “[O]ur duty is 

simply to ascertain and apply the state law.” Gerson v. Logan River Acad., 20 F.4th 

1263, 1277 (10th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted). We review the district court’s 

interpretation of state law de novo. Genzer v. James River Ins. Co., 934 F.3d 1156, 

1164 (10th Cir. 2019).

Products Liability

Under Oklahoma products liability law, a manufacturer that sells a “product in 

a defective condition, which is unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer, is 

strictly liable for the physical harm to the person or property caused by the defect.” 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 6
7

Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 45 P.3d 86, 91 (Okla. 2002). In Kirkland v. General

Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla. 1974), the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated the 

elements of a products liability claim: (1) “the product was the cause of the injury,” 

(2) “the defect existed in the product . . . at the time the product left the 

manufacturer’s possession and control,” and (3) “the defect made the [product] 

unreasonably dangerous to [the user] or to his property.” Id. at 1363.

A plaintiff may establish element two by showing that a third party’s 

“subsequent modification” that created the defect “was foreseeable.” Saupitty v. 

Yazoo Mfg. Co., 726 F.2d 657, 659 (10th Cir. 1984).

A plaintiff may establish element three—that the defect made the product 

“unreasonably dangerous”—by satisfying the “consumer expectations test,” which 

requires a showing that the product is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which 

would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary 

knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” Woods v. Fruehauf 

Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770, 774 (Okla. 1988) (quoting Restatement (Second) of 

Torts § 402A cmt. i (Am. L. Inst. 1965)); see Braswell v. Cincinnati Inc., 731 F.3d 

1081, 1087-89 (10th Cir. 2013).7

 This test cannot be met “if the product contains a 

7 Oklahoma courts have not adopted the alternative “risk-utility test” for an 

unreasonably dangerous product from the Third Restatement—whether “an alternative 

design would provide greater overall safety” and “could be implemented at reasonable 

cost.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 2 cmt. g (Am. L. Inst. 1998); see 

Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1089 (“[T]here is no sign that Oklahoma has backed away from the 

consumer expectations test since the release of the Third Restatement in 1998.”). 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 7
8

warning that adequately addresses the known risks of use.” McPhail v. Deere & Co., 

529 F.3d 947, 958 (10th Cir. 2008). 

An adequate warning “cover[s] all foreseeable use.” Smith v. U.S. Gypsum 

Co., 612 P.2d 251, 253 (Okla. 1980). With an adequate warning, a “potentially 

dangerous” product “escape[s] being unreasonably dangerous.” Id. at 254. 

Oklahoma courts “do not require . . . granular specificity for warnings,” but the 

warnings must cover the “salient dangers,” Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1090, and “be 

readily understandable,” Smith, 612 P.2d at 254. “Where warning is given, the seller 

may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded . . . .” Braswell, 731 F.3d 

at 1087 (quotations omitted); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. j. 

(Am. L. Inst. 1965). 

Warnings are insufficient when they are “unclear or inadequate to apprise the 

consumer” of the danger. Smith, 612 P.2d at 253-54. Then “[a] manufacturer cannot 

defend on the basis that perfect compliance with its instructions” for using the 

product “would have prevented the accident.” Karns v. Emerson Elec. Co., 817 F.2d 

1452, 1457 (10th Cir. 1987) (quotations omitted). 

Failure to Warn

Under Oklahoma law, courts may address products liability and failure to warn 

claims together because “warnings sufficient to counteract an otherwise dangerous 

design” for the products liability claim “usually satisfy the manufacturer’s duty to 

warn.” Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1085, 1092 & n.3. Compare AlNahhas v. Robert Bosch 

Tool Corp., 706 F. App’x 920, 931 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (addressing the 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 8
9

claims separately where the “parties have consistently discussed . . . design defect 

and failure to warn as if they are two entirely distinct claims” and the “district court 

followed that approach”), with Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1085, 1092 (analyzing failure to 

warn and products liability claims together).8

 

Here, we address the products liability and failure to warn claims together 

because the parties and the district court have not treated them as distinct claims. 

See App., Vol. IV at 1107, 1113 (district court analyzing products liability and failure 

to warn claims together); Aplt. Br. at 10-11, 15-21 (not distinguishing the failure to 

warn claim from the products liability claim); Aplee. Br. at 1, 18, 20-29 (advancing 

products liability and failure to warn arguments together).

Negligence

“Even with the advent of strict products liability, the negligence cause of 

action remains available to a plaintiff injured by a defective product.” Braswell, 731 

F.3d at 1093 n.4 (quoting Honeywell v. GADA Builders, Inc., 271 P.3d 88, 96 (Okla.

Civ. App. 2011)). The plaintiff must establish (1) “a duty on the part of the 

defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury,” (2) “the failure of the defendant to 

perform that duty,” and (3) “injury to the plaintiff resulting from such failure.” 

Woods, 765 P.2d at 775. For a negligence claim based on a defective product, the 

8 We cite unpublished cases as persuasive under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(A) and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 9
10

plaintiff may allege negligent product design or a breach of the duty to warn. 

See Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1085, 1093; Smith, 612 P.2d at 254 n.3. 

C. Procedural History

After the drop fire incident, the Oglesbees sued Glock for products liability, 

failure to warn, negligence, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular 

purpose.

9 The district court, exercising diversity jurisdiction, granted Glock’s 

motions for summary judgment on all four claims.

10

The district court addressed the Kirkland products liability elements. On 

element one, it described how the pistol caused Mr. Oglesbee’s injury. The court did 

not reach element two, stating it “decline[d] to speculate as to the scope of 

foreseeability” under Oklahoma law. App., Vol. IV at 1109. On element three, it 

said that “even where a product’s design defect makes the product unreasonably 

dangerous, Oklahoma law does not impose liability if the product contains a warning 

that adequately addresses the known risks of use.” Id. (quoting McPhail, 529 F.3d 

at 958). It found the “undisputed facts demonstrate that Glock explicitly warned 

against the salient danger—a drop fire—in the event that the internal design features 

or mechanical safeties were altered.” Id. at 1111. And “[b]ecause Glock’s warnings 

9 The Oglesbees named other defendants but dismissed all claims against them. 

10 The Oglesbees do not appeal the summary judgment ruling on the claim for 

breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 10
11

adequately addressed the known risks,” the pistol “was not unreasonably dangerous 

and Glock cannot be liable.” Id. at 1112-13. 

The district court thus granted summary judgment on both the products 

liability and failure to warn claims because “no genuine dispute of material fact 

exists as to the adequacy of Glock’s warnings.” Id. at 1112. It also granted summary 

judgment on the negligence claim because “a showing that the [pistol] was 

unreasonably dangerous is necessary to each of the Oglesbees’ negligence theories.” 

Id. at 1114-15.

The Oglesbees timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

The Oglesbees argue there is a genuine dispute of material fact on the 

warnings’ adequacy. See Aplt. Br. at 16. We disagree.

A. Summary Judgment

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the 

same standard applied by the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).” Cillo v. 

City of Greenwood Vill., 739 F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir. 2013). We will affirm a grant 

of summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]he 

dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine’ . . . if the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We “view facts in the light most favorable to the 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 11
12

non-mov[ants] . . . resolving all factual disputes and reasonable inferences in their 

favor.” Cillo, 739 F.3d at 461 (quotations omitted).

B. Analysis

Glock was entitled to summary judgment on its products liability, failure to 

warn, and negligence claims because its warnings were adequate and the pistol was

thus not unreasonably dangerous.

On the three Kirkland elements for a products liability claim, the district court 

(1) said the pistol caused Mr. Oglesbee’s injury; (2) “decline[d] to speculate” on 

whether the modifications to the pistol with aftermarket parts were foreseeable, 

App., Vol. IV at 1109; and (3) determined the pistol was not unreasonably dangerous 

because Glock’s warnings were adequate. This appeal concerns the third element.

Products Liability

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Oglesbees 

could not show the pistol was unreasonably dangerous. See Kirkland, 521 P.2d 

at 1363. As previously noted, “Oklahoma law does not impose liability if the product

contains a warning that adequately addresses the known risks of use.” McPhail,

529 F.3d at 958. The warnings here were adequate under Oklahoma law.

11

11 The Oglesbees argue the pistol was unreasonably dangerous because Glock 

“could and should have adapted the internal safety mechanisms to accommodate such 

easily anticipated modifications” with aftermarket parts “but did not.” Aplt. Br. at 22; 

see also id. at 3. But this argument invokes the “risk-utility test,” which provides that

“manufacturers ha[ve] a duty to eliminate dangers where an alternative design could do 

so without imposing unreasonable costs or impairing the functionality of the product.” 

Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1088; Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 2 cmt. g (1998). 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 12
13

a. Warnings

The warnings were “readily understandable,” covering the “foreseeable use,”

Smith, 612 P.2d at 253-54, of a pistol modified with aftermarket parts and the “salient 

danger[]” of drop fire, Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1090. 

The Manual warns that the “proper and safe function of this pistol is based on 

the premise that parts are not altered or modified,” including the function of “several 

internal design features and mechanical safeties, designed to prevent an accidental 

discharge should the pistol be dropped.” App., Vol. I at 166-67. This warning

identifies the “salient danger[]” of a drop fire from the foreseeable use of a modified 

pistol. Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1090. The Manual further warns that “disassembly by 

the user” beyond steps listed in the Manual to clean the gun “is neither required nor 

recommended, and should only be performed by a GLOCK-certified armorer.” App., 

Vol. I at 186. The Oglesbees have not shown that a reasonable jury could find these 

warnings to be inadequate. Their arguments on appeal are unavailing. 

First, they argue that a “blanket statement recommendation to users not to alter 

or modify the Glock pistol” is inadequate because it does not “alert the user as to 

which modifications will affect the overall safety of the firearm.” Aplt. Br. at 7

(quotations omitted). But the warnings caution against all modifications, and 

Oklahoma does “not require . . . granular specificity for warnings.” Braswell, 

Oklahoma has not adopted the risk-utility test, so the Oglesbees’ argument is unavailing. 

See Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1087-89. 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 13
14

731 F.3d at 1090. Indeed, a litany of warnings about the numerous combinations and 

permutations of aftermarket parts modifications would risk providing a warning that 

is not “readily understandable.” Smith, 612 P.2d at 254; see App., Vol. I at 91; App., 

Vol. II at 478. Glock’s warnings adequately covered the “salient danger[]” of drop 

fire “accompanying [the] operation” of a modified pistol. Braswell, 731 F.3d 

at 1090. 

Second, the Oglesbees complain that the first warning begins on page three of 

the Manual and resumes on page five, with a page of Spanish instructions in between. 

See Aplt. Br. at 8, 17-18. But the all-caps warning runs on consecutive Englishlanguage pages, see App., Vol. I at 166-67, and is “readily understandable,” Smith, 

612 P.2d at 254. The layout of the warning could be better but does not render it 

“unclear or inadequate to apprise the consumer” of the danger. Id. at 253-54. 

b. Testing instructions

The testing instructions complement the warnings. They caution that “[i]n 

case the trigger safety proves to be ineffective for any reason, DANGER of an 

unintentional discharge exists.” App., Vol. I at 167. The Manual lists 13 testing 

instructions to inspect the pistol and warns that “[f]ailure of any of the following 

checks . . . should be referred to GLOCK, Inc., your local GLOCK dealer, or a 

GLOCK-certified Armorer.” Id. at 188. The Manual further warns that “strict 

adherence to the safety instructions and other instructions contained in this manual by 

the gun user is mandatory for minimizing the risk of accidents.” Id. at 166. Thus, 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 14
15

failure to complete all of the testing instructions could risk an unintentional discharge 

due to the trigger safety failing to engage. See Braswell, 731 F.3d at 1089-90.

Glock “may reasonably assume that [its warnings] will be read and heeded.” 

Id. at 1087. Despite the Manual’s directive to complete all of the testing instructions, 

Mr. Oglesbee relied only on instruction 10. The Oglesbees argue this instruction is 

the “only appropriate trigger safety test” and that it gives “a false indication to the 

user that the [trigger] safety is operating correctly.” Aplt. Br. at 20. But testing 

instruction 11 describes how to test whether the “trigger . . . reset[s] to its forward 

position” to ensure that the trigger safety will engage, App., Vol. I at 188; see id.

at 90; App., Vol. II at 477, and Mr. Oglesbee did not rely on instruction 11. He 

therefore did not follow “strict adherence” to the testing instructions, which is 

“mandatory for minimizing the risk of accidents.” App., Vol. I at 166. 

The Oglesbees’ further assertion that instruction 11 fails to “provide user 

guidance” rings hollow, especially when Mr. Oglesbee did not attempt to follow 

instruction 11. Aplt. Br. at 20. In particular, the Oglesbees say an instruction 11 test 

would not reveal whether the trigger is in the fully forward position to reengage the 

safety. Id. at 9, 20-21.12 But they do not base this assertion on Mr. Oglesbee’s 

having performed the test, or support it with evidence regarding instruction 11. 

12 We do not address the Oglesbees’ argument that testing instructions 10 and 11 

were inadequate because they do not “includ[e] demonstrative photographs” for the user 

to visually “determine whether the trigger is in a fully forward position.” Aplt. Br. at 20. 

They did not present this argument to the district court. “[W]e generally do not consider 

new theories on appeal—even those that fall under the same general category as one that 

was presented in the district court.” Utah Animal Rts. Coal. v. Salt Lake County, 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 15
16

* * * *

In sum, a rational trier of fact could not find that the warnings and testing 

instructions were inadequate under Oklahoma law. The pistol was therefore not

unreasonably dangerous under Kirkland element three, and Glock was entitled to 

summary judgment.

Failure to Warn

Glock is entitled to summary judgment on the failure to warn claim because 

there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the adequacy of the warnings. As in 

Braswell, the warnings here are “sufficient to counteract an otherwise dangerous 

design” for the products liability claim and “satisfy [Glock’s] duty to warn” for the 

failure to warn claim. 731 F.3d at 1092 & n.3.

Negligence

Because the warnings were adequate and thus the pistol was not unreasonably 

dangerous, the Oglesbees’ negligence claim also fails because they alleged and 

argued that their negligence claim hinged on whether the pistol was unreasonably 

dangerous. App., Vol. I at 72, 75 (alleging that Glock “negligently designed, 

manufactured, marketed, instructed, tested, and/or distributed the Glock pistol . . . 

which rendered the firearm unreasonably dangerous” and “[a]s a result of [Glock’s] 

acts or inactions, including . . . negligent acts, Mr. Oglesbee’s pistol was 

566 F.3d 1236, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009). Because the Oglesbees do not argue for plain 

error review of this forfeited argument, they have waived it on appeal. United States v. 

MacKay, 715 F.3d 807, 831 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 16
17

unreasonably dangerous and caused or proximately caused his injuries and 

damages”); Aplt. Br. at 23-24 (arguing because the district court erred in finding the 

pistol unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law, “the court’s ruling on the 

negligence claims must necessarily be reversed as well”). We therefore affirm 

summary judgment on the negligence claim.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s judgment.13

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.

Circuit Judge

13 We grant the motion to file certain exhibits under seal under Tenth Circuit Rule 

25.6. See Aplt. Doc. 26; Aplee. Doc. 27.

Appellate Case: 23-5134 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 12/27/2024 Page: 17