Products Liability Law Reporter

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that dismissal of a plaintiff’s gun manufacturer liability suit was warranted where the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence that a specific defect caused his injuries.

Christopher Shiver suffered serious injuries to his jaw and face after his Taurus PT 740 handgun fired when dropped. He sued Taurus International Manufacturing Inc. and Taurus Holdings Inc., alleging negligence, strict liability design and manufacturing defects, strict liability failure to warn, misrepresentation, and breach of warranties. The plaintiff retained expert William Munsell, who conducted a so-called drop test and opined that a trigger defect in the PT 740 could have led to a drop fire. Munsell did not express an opinion as to whether the alleged defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The defense moved for summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims and to exclude Munsell’s testimony. The district court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiff had not shown a causal link between the alleged defect and his harm.

Affirming, the court found that Munsell failed to recreate the incident or rule out other possibilities regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the court said, it would be speculative, and based on a mere possibility, for the jury to infer that the gun’s alleged defect was a substantial factor in causing the drop fire. Such a mere possibility is insufficient to allow a plaintiff to recover, the court held, concluding that the district court’s ruling was proper.

Citation: Shiver v. Taurus Int’l Mfg. Inc., 2025 WL 573686 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025).