Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: DAVID W. STONE IV Stone Law Office & Legal Research Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DONALD L. DAWSON JOHN B. DRUMMY MARK D. GERTH Kightlinger & Gray, L.L.P. Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
) ) Appellants-Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) JUSTIN ROBISON and KNIGHT RIFLES, INC., ) ) Appellees-Defendants. ) JAMES DEATON and LISA DEATON,

No. 36A04-0702-CV-102

APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable William E. Vance, Judge Cause No. 36C01-0407-CT-22

December 31, 2007

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE James Deaton ("Deaton") and Lisa Deaton (collectively "the Deatons") appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of Knight Rifles, Inc. ("Knight") on the Deatons' complaint alleging negligence. The Deatons present the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court erred when it entered judgment on the evidence on the issue of inadequate warnings. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded from evidence an owner's manual and instructional video associated with Knight's product.

2.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Justin Robison owned a black powder rifle, model MK-95, manufactured by Knight. On December 1, 2002, Robison and Deaton were in Robison's garage preparing to go deer hunting when Robison realized that he had left his rifle loaded from the previous day's hunt. Acknowledging the danger posed by transporting a loaded rifle, Robison said to Deaton, "I've got to unload this before I kill somebody." Appellee's App. at 3. Robison tried to pull the spring-loaded bolt back to unload the rifle when the bolt slipped and struck the primer, causing the rifle to fire. The rifle was aimed at Deaton, and he sustained a shot to his leg. Robison's rifle was equipped with two safeties. Only one safety, the trigger safety, was engaged at the time of the shooting. The rifle would not have fired at all had both safeties been engaged. The Deatons filed a complaint alleging that Robison was negligent in shooting Deaton and that Knight was negligent in failing to adequately warn of the dangers
2

associated with the MK-95. During trial, Knight moved for judgment on the evidence on the issue of inadequate warnings, which the trial court granted. In addition, the trial court sustained Knight's objection to the admission into evidence of a manual and instructional video associated with Robison's rifle. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Robison 100% at fault in causing Deaton's injuries and awarded damages to the Deatons in the amount of $1,025,000. This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Issue One: Judgment on the Evidence The Deatons first contend that the trial court erred when it entered judgment on the evidence in favor of Knight on the issue of inadequate warnings associated with the MK-95. Our standard of review is well settled: When reviewing the trial court's [ruling on] a motion for judgment on the evidence, we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the nonmovant along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We must determine whether there was evidence of probative value supporting each element which would justify submission of the claim to the jury. If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence or if reasonable people would differ as to the result, judgment on the evidence is properly denied. A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only in those cases where the evidence is not conflicting and susceptible to one inference, supporting judgment for the movant. Thus, our role on review is no different from that of the trial court. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Combs, 873 N.E.2d 692, 712-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kirby, 687 N.E.2d 611, 615-16 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)). This case falls within the provisions of the Indiana Products Liability Act ("the Act"). Under the Act, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous; (2) the defective condition existed at the time the product left
3

the defendant's control; and (3) the defective condition was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 522, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. A product may be defective because of a failure to warn of the dangers inherent in the product's use, and a duty to warn consists of two duties: (1) to provide adequate instructions for safe use; and (2) to provide a warning as to dangers inherent in improper use. Id. "Unreasonably dangerous," for purposes of the Act, refers to any situation in which the use of a product exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases the product with the ordinary knowledge about the product's characteristics common to the community of consumers. Ind. Code

Download James and Lisa Deaton v. Justin Robison and Knight Rifles, Inc..pdf

Indiana Law