Court Opinion

ID: 9474079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:47:38.877739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:53.689724
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I find myself unable to join the majority in its disposition of this appeal. A jury, well aware that the design change in question was feasible (Remington admitted it at trial), determined that the act of Mrs. Mu-zyka’s stepfather in running live ammunition through the chamber of a rifle — indoors, in her company, and with the gun’s safety in the “fire” position — was negligence and the sole cause of her injury. That the rifle could have been designed so that even such carelessness would not have caused her injury was undisputed and conceded. Like the trial judge, who heard the evidence and observed both jury and witnesses, I cannot believe that evidence of the subsequent design change by Remington would have altered this jury finding.
Either the jury did not believe the family’s account of how the accident happened, or it believed that Mr. Melton’s knowing adoption of the unsafe procedure caused the accident. Because the jury well knew that Remington could have designed the rifle so that this particular accident would have been impossible, it seems to me unlikely in the extreme that evidence of Remington’s later decision to adopt such a design would have influenced the jury to any significant degree. That being so, I would not disturb its verdict; I therefore respectfully dissent.