United States District Court, D. Colorado
CHRISTINA WATSON, ROBERT WATSON, and THE ESTATE OF FALON WATSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
VISTA OUTDOOR, INC., VISTA OUTDOOR OPERATIONS, LLC, and VISTA OUTDOOR SALES, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Defendants Vista Outdoor, Inc.,
Vista Outdoor Operations, LLC, and Vista Outdoor Sales,
LLC's (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. # 65.) Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. #
71) on May 25, 2018 and Defendants filed a reply (Doc. # 72)
on June 7, 2018. Having thoroughly reviewed the underlying
briefing, pertinent record, and applicable law, the Court
grants Defendants' Motion for the following reasons.
I.
BACKGROUND
Fifteen-year-old
Fallon Watson (“Decedent”) died from a single
gunshot wound to the head on March 1, 2014 (“the
incident”). (Doc. ## 35 at ¶¶ 9-10, 65-1 at
4.) After performing an autopsy, Dr. Robert Bux described
Decedent's wound as a “[p]enetrating gunshot wound
with the bullet going steeply upward through the hard palate
adjacent to the right maxillary canine tooth and entering the
right frontal lobe striking the dura and ricocheting
backward, lodging in the medial superior margin of the right
frontoparietal lobe area.” (Doc. # 65-1 at 5.) Dr. Bux
concluded that “[a]t the time of discharge, the end of
the muzzle of the weapon was placed in contact with the skin
underneath the right chin” and that the wound was
“self-inflicted . . . .” (Id.)
Plaintiffs
in this lawsuit are Decedent's parents and Decedent's
estate. (Doc. # 35 at ¶¶ 1-2.) On the day of the
incident, Decedent's father discovered her body.
(Id. at ¶ 12.) At that time, the pistol that
discharged and caused Decedent's death was underneath her
body, inside a holster that was fastened with a strap. (Doc #
71 at 3.) Defendants manufactured a nylon holster branded as
Uncle Mike's Sidekick Hip Holster (“the
holster”), which was carrying the pistol involved in
the incident. (Doc. # 35 at ¶¶ 12-16, 18.)
Plaintiffs
argue that the pistol discharged accidentally because of a
defect in the design of the holster. (Id. at ¶
17.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the holster's
design featured soft sides which allowed the pistol's
safety to be unintentionally disengaged and the pistol's
trigger to be unintentionally pulled. See (Doc. # 71
at 4.) Defendants, by contrast, argue that the design of
their holster is not defective and that the holster could not
have contributed to Decedent's death as Plaintiffs
allege. (Doc. # 65 at 4.)
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary
judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that 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). A fact is “material” if it is
essential to the proper disposition of the claim under the
relevant substantive law. Wright v. Abbot Labs.,
Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). A dispute
is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it
might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, Okl., 118 F.3d
837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997). When reviewing motions for summary
judgment, a court may not resolve issues of credibility, and
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party-including all reasonable inferences from that
evidence. Id. However, conclusory statements based
merely on conjecture, speculation, or subjective belief do
not constitute competent summary judgment evidence. Bones
v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th
Cir. 2004).
The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating an
absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement
to judgment as a matter of law. Id. In attempting to
meet this standard, a movant who does not bear the ultimate
burden of persuasion at trial does not need to disprove the
other party's claims; rather, the movant need simply
point the court to a lack of evidence for the other party on
an essential element of that party's claim. Adler v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 644, 671 (10th Cir.
1998) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986)).
Once
the movant meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts
to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256
(1986). The nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its
pleadings to satisfy this burden. Id. Rather, the
nonmoving party must “set forth specific facts that
would be admissible in evidence from which a rational trier
of fact could find for the nonmoving party.”
Adler, 144 F.3d at 671. “To accomplish this,
the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits,
deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated
therein.” Id. Ultimately, the Court's
inquiry on summary judgment is whether the facts and evidence
identified by the parties present “a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
B.
APPLICATION
Plaintiffs
assert two products liability theories against Defendants.
First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are strictly liable
because Defendants manufactured and sold a defectively
designed product. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants
negligently breached their duty of care by failing to
properly design the holster, provide warnings about
accidental discharge, or recall the holster. (Doc. # 71 at 5,
9.)
1.
Strict Product Liability
A claim
for strict product liability in Colorado requires a plaintiff
...