Exploding Rifles and the LPLA: What is “Reasonably Anticipated Use”?

When a product fails—especially a high-powered tool or firearm—the results can be catastrophic. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), manufacturers are held to a high standard of safety. But what happens when a product is altered before it causes an injury? A seminal Fifth Circuit case involving a rifle explosion in Louisiana provides a clear warning: if a product is used in a way the manufacturer could not reasonably anticipate, your right to recovery may vanish.

If a company manufactures a defective product, and an individual is injured by that product, the manufacturer may be liable for the damages suffered by the product-user. The product, be it a cleaning supply or an automobile part, or any number of different items found in everyday life, bears an element of responsibility of reliability and worthiness when it is delivered by a manufacturer. When that responsibility is breeched, legal remedy is available.

Understanding the LPLA: The Four Elements of a Product Liability Claim

In Louisiana, the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) is the exclusive remedy for anyone injured by a defective product. You cannot simply sue for “negligence”; you must prove four specific elements. As the Fifth Circuit explained in Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., a plaintiff must show the product was used in a reasonably anticipated manner, it caused the damage, it was unreasonably dangerous, and the defect existed when it left the manufacturer’s control.

As the Fifth Circuit described in the seminal case of Matthews v. Remington Arms Co., in order for an injured party to win an action against a product manufacturer, that party must prove: (1) that the party, or another “person or entity” was using the product in a manner reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer; (2) that an aspect of the product directly caused the damage(s) claimed; “(3) the product was ‘unreasonably dangerous’ either in construction, design, or warning; and (4) the characteristic rendering the product unreasonably dangerous either ‘exist[ed] at the time the product left the control of its manufacturer or result[ed] from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.’”

Reasonably Anticipated Use: The Manufacturer’s Shield

If a party can show that a product, used in a way reasonably anticipated, could harm a product-user, the manufacturer may have a legal duty to design its product in a manner which would avoid such harm. As explained by the Fifth Circuit, a reasonably anticipated use is a “use or handling of a product that the product’s manufacturer should reasonably expect of an ordinary person in the same or similar circumstances.” If it can be shown that a product was misused and that misuse resulted in the damages claimed by the product-user, then that user cannot collect against the manufacturer for his or her damages.

The most contested part of many product liability cases is whether the victim was using the item the way the manufacturer intended. Louisiana law defines “reasonably anticipated use” as how an ordinary person in similar circumstances would handle the product. If a user removes a safety component—like the bolt-assembly pin in the Matthews case—the manufacturer may argue the product was misused, effectively shielding them from liability.

Understanding Strict Liability is essential when dealing with manufacturers who put dangerous goods into the marketplace.

The Remington Arms Case: Why a Missing Pin Cost the Plaintiff His Case

The plaintiff in this case suffered an uncontained explosion while firing a Model 710 rifle. However, evidence showed that a critical bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled. Because Remington included warnings against firing the rifle without this pin, the court found that the manufacturer could not have reasonably expected someone to use the weapon in such a dangerous state.

In the Matthews case, the plaintiff had borrowed a Model 710 rifle from another individual. The manufacturer designed the rifle to be fired with a bolt-assembly pin in place. Warnings were included in the rifle manual stating that the rifle should not be fired without the required pin. According to the Fifth Circuit, the defendant rifle manufacturer had not received any reports, prior to this lawsuit being filed, of its Model 710 rifle being fired without the required bolt-assembly pin. The Fifth Circuit found that someone had removed the bolt-assembly pin, and when the bolt-assembly pin was removed from the rifle in question and was not reinstalled, the rifle’s bolt head did not lock with the rifle’s barrel when later used by the plaintiff. This resulted in an uncontained explosion which caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

In the proceedings below, the trial court had found that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused because the pin was defective, but rather because it had been removed from the rifle. The trial court also determined that the pin had been manufactured according to the applicable specifications.

Therefore, the main issue before the Fifth Circuit in Matthews was whether or not it was fair of the trial court to find that the plaintiff had fired the rifle after the bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled, as opposed to the plaintiff simply firing the rifle. The Fifth Circuit focused on whether or not the plaintiff had used the rifle in a manner reasonably anticipated by the rifle manufacturer to determine if the rifle manufacturer had a duty to the injured plaintiff, in this case, to design its rifle in such a way as to prevent the harm caused.

After reviewing the case, and determining that the pin was missing at the time the plaintiff fired the rifle, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the trial court’s finding that the defendant rifle manufacturer should not have expected that someone would fire its Model 710 rifle after its bolt-assembly pin had been removed and not reinstalled. The Fifth Circuit found that the pin could have been removed by the plaintiff or another individual.