Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02086-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ROBERT FORD, SR. and

ANNA FORD PLAINTIFF

v. 05-CV-2086

TRADITIONAL SPORTING GOODS, INC.

d/b/a TRADITIONS and

HODGDON POWDER COMPANY, INC. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Currently before the Court are Separate Defendant Hodgdon

Powder Company, Inc.’s (Hodgdon) Motion for Summary Judgment

(Docs. 39, 40, 43), Plaintiffs’ response (Docs. 58-59) and

Hodgdon’s reply (Docs. 70-71). Plaintiffs bring this action

against Hodgdon pursuant to the Arkansas Product Liability Act

of 1979. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-101, et seq. Plaintiff Robert

Ford contends he was injured while firing a rifle manufactured

by Separate Defendant Traditional Sporting Goods, Inc. d/b/a

Traditions (Traditions) which utilized powder manufactured by

Hodgdon. Plaintiffs contend Hodgdon placed a defective and

unreasonably dangerous product, Pyrodex RS, into the stream of

commerce. Plaintiffs contend the Pyrodex RS was defective

because Hodgdon did not warn consumers that the product

presented a danger if utilized in the specific type of rifle

used by Plaintiff Robert Ford when he was injured. Plaintiffs

further allege claims against Hodgdon for breach of implied

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 2 of 7

warranty of marketability and negligence. Plaintiff Anna Ford

asserts a claim for loss of consortium.

Hodgdon contends it is entitled to summary judgment as

Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that the Pyrodex RS was

defective or that Hodgdon failed to appropriately warn

Plaintiffs. Based on the reasons that follow, Hodgdon’s Motion

for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint is DISMISSED against Separate Defendant Hodgdon. 

Background

Traditions is an importer and distributor of muzzleloading

and/or blackpowder firearms. Hodgdon designs, manufactures and

distributes gun powder. According to Plaintiffs, Robert Ford

was given a Traditions Buck Hunter Pro In-Line 50 Caliber Muzzle

Loading Rifle as a gift in November 2003. Plaintiffs contend

Mr. Ford also received a Warranty and Shooting Instruction

Manual (the Manual) with the rifle.

On January 2, 2004, Mr. Ford contends he fired the rifle

three times without difficulties but on the fourth time the

rifle exploded causing injuries and the partial amputation of

his right hand. Prior to firing the rifle, Mr. Ford maintains

he carefully reviewed the shooting instructions and warnings

contained in the Manual. He also claims that he used the amount

of Pyrodex RS that was recommended by the Manual and that he

fired the rifle some thirteen (13) times prior to the explosion.

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 3 of 7

Discussion

In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the

Court must view the facts and inferences in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. See Rabushka v. Crane Co.,

122 F.3d 559, 562 (8 Cir. 1997). The moving party bears the th

burden of establishing the absence of issues of material fact in

the record and of establishing that it is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 316 (1986).

A. Strict Liability Claim - Failure to Warn

Hodgdon contends it is entitled to summary judgment on

Plaintiffs’ strict liability claim for failure to warn as

neither of Plaintiffs’ experts expressed any criticism of

Hodgdon, and Mr. Ford testified that he did not rely on the

Hodgdon label but rather relied on the Manual provided by

Traditions. Plaintiffs provided no evidence that Hodgdon’s

warnings were insufficient while Hodgdon’s expert, Dr. J.P.

Purswell, stated in his opinion that Hodgdon’s warnings “were

adequate for its safe use and for the foreseeable misuse of the

product.” (Doc. 43, p. 9). Plaintiffs contend that Hodgdon

should have warned consumers that its product could be used in

the Traditions rifles and that any such use would create

pressures in excess of the levels the rifles were tested. 

In order to state a cause of action under the strict

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 4 of 7

liability theory, the plaintiff must plead: (1) that he has

sustained damages; (2) that the defendant was engaged in the

business of manufacturing, assembling, selling, leasing or

distributing the product; (3) that the product was supplied by

the defendant in a defective condition which rendered it

unreasonably dangerous; and (4) that the defective condition was

a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. See West v.

Searle & Co., G.D., 806 S.W.2d (Ark. 1991)(citations omitted).

Generally speaking, there are three varieties of product

defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate

warnings. Id. As a general rule, there is a duty to warn the

ultimate user of a product of the risk of the product. Lee v.

Martin, 45 S.W.3d 860 (Ark. App. 2001)(citation omitted). This

duty exists under either a negligence theory or a strictliability theory. Id. 

In this case, Plaintiffs contend that Hodgdon supplied the

Pyrodex RS in a defective condition by failing to warn that the

product was dangerous when used in connection with the specific

Traditions rifle used by Mr. Ford. Plaintiffs do not contend

that the Pyrodex RS was defective in and of itself. However,

Plaintiffs’ claim fails as Hodgdon had no duty to warn

Plaintiffs that the otherwise safe Pyrodex RS would be dangerous

when used in connection with a Traditions Buck Hunter Pro InCase 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiffs contend that Hodgdon does not base its summary judgment motion on the fact 1

that it had no duty to warn Plaintiffs. However, whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn is a

question of law, and the absence of a duty to warn prevents Plaintiffs from proving their strict

liability claim. 

Page 5 of 7

Line 50 Caliber Muzzle Loading Rifle.1

In a similar case, Cervelli v. Thompson/Center Arms, et

al., 183 F.Supp.2d 1032 (S.D. Ohio 2002), the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, found that the

manufacturer of the bullet in a rifle accident had no duty to

warn of dangers that might have existed when the bullet was

integrated into the rifle fired by the injured plaintiff. In

Cervelli, the plaintiff was injured while firing a muzzleloading rifle and brought products liability actions against the

manufacturers of the rifle and the bullet. The evidence

established that the bullet was not defective, but the plaintiff

alleged that the bullet became defective when integrated into

the rifle at issue. Cervelli, 183 F.Supp.2d at 1046-47. The

court found that the bullet manufacturer had no duty to warn

Plaintiff of the increased barrel pressure associated with the

use of that bullet or the possibility of a malfunction in the

rifle due to increased barrel pressure as the bullet

manufacturer had no role in the design or assembly of the rifle.

Id. See also, In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants

Products Liability Litigation v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.,

97 F.3d 1050 (8 Cir. 1996)(non-defective component part th

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 6 of 7

manufacturer had no duty to warn consumers of other companies’

finished products).

The Court finds that the Pyrodex RS manufactured by Hodgdon

was a non-defective product, and that Hodgdon had no duty to

warn Plaintiffs of potential dangers when used in conjunction

with the Traditions Buck Hunter Pro In-Line 50 Caliber Muzzle

Loading Rifle. The Pyrodex RS itself is not an inherently

dangerous product, and Hodgdon had no control over the design,

testing or manufacturing of the Traditions rifle. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ strict liability claim for failure to warn must

fail. 

B. Negligence

Plaintiffs also argue that Hodgdon was negligent in failing

to warn them of dangerous propensities of Pyrodex RS when used

in the Traditions Buck Hunter Pro In-Line 50 Caliber Muzzle

Loading Rifle. The Court has concluded Hodgdon had no duty to

warn Plaintiffs, and this claim must fail for the reasons

addressed above in connection with Plaintiffs’ strict liability

claim. 

C. Breach of Implied Warranty of Marketability

Plaintiffs also assert a claim for breach of implied

warranty of marketability. The gravamen of such a claim is that

the product is not suited for its ordinary purpose. See Lee,

supra. Plaintiffs do not contend that the powder was itself

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 7 of 7

defective but only that Hodgdon should have warned them of

dangers associated when used in Mr. Ford’s particular rifle.

Plaintiffs have offered no proof that the Pyrodex RS was

defective or was inadequate to serve its ordinary purpose.

Therefore, summary judgment is proper on this claim. 

D. Loss of Consortium

Plaintiff Anna Ford’s claim for loss of consortium is

dependent upon her husband’s claims for damages. As all claims

against Hodgdon have been dismissed, the loss of consortium

claim against Hodgdon must also be DISMISSED. See Sisemore v.

Neal, 367 S.W.2d 417 (Ark. 1963).

E. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Court determines Hodgdon’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Separate Defendant

Hodgdon. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2006.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Hon. Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:05-cv-02086-RTD Document 74 Filed 06/02/06 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>