Brian Cornwell v. Extreme Tactical Components, LLC, A.K.A. Extreme Air Rifles, LLC, Michael B. North, A.K.A. Extreme Big Bore Air Rifles, Texas Machine Parts, LLC, Danny Duke, and John Wiley

Summary

In this products-liability action involving an air rifle and replacement valve assembly, the Eastern District of Louisiana considered Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The court declined to consider affidavits submitted by Plaintiff as summary-judgment evidence, granted summary judgment on the construction/manufacturing-defect and redhibition claims, and allowed the design-defect and breach-of-express-warranty claims to proceed.

Holdings

1. The court would not use the plaintiff's affidavit as factual summary-judgment evidence because it was prefaced by statements made on information and belief and also contained inadmissible, conclusory, unsupported, or improperly founded statements.
2. The court would not consider the two expert affidavits because they were submitted after the disclosure deadline, contained material beyond the experts' timely reports and testimony, and the plaintiff did not show that the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
3. The construction or manufacturing defect claims failed because Cornwell identified neither the applicable manufacturer specifications or standards nor evidence that the particular air rifle or replacement valve materially deviated from those standards.
4. The design defect claims survived summary judgment because the record contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an alternative design and perform the required risk-utility analysis.
5. The breach-of-express-warranty claim survived summary judgment because a reasonable juror could construe the instruction to place a finger over the barrel as a representation that the product would safely operate when the instruction was followed, and the record supported the remaining warranty elements.
6. The redhibition claims concerning both the air rifle and replacement valve assembly failed because Cornwell lacked competent evidence that the products were absolutely useless or so inconvenient that he would not have purchased them, that the alleged defects were hidden and existed at purchase, or that Defendants were given an opportunity to repair them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cornwell submitted competent summary-judgment evidence supporting his claims despite the form and timing of his affidavits.
2. Whether Cornwell submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute on his Louisiana Products Liability Act construction or manufacturing defect claims.
3. Whether Cornwell submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute on his Louisiana Products Liability Act design defect claims.
4. Whether the air-rifle filling instructions could constitute an express warranty and whether the evidence supported a breach-of-express-warranty claim.
5. Whether Cornwell submitted sufficient evidence to support redhibition claims concerning the air rifle and replacement valve assembly.

Disposition

other