Hartman v. EBSCO Industries, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in instant products liability action alleging that defendant’s muzzle gun that was purchased in 1994 was defective for failing to warn plaintiff, when plaintiff installed 2008 gun conversion kit, that gun could unexpectedly discharge if plaintiff failed to swab barrel of gun between shots. Dist. Ct. could properly find Indiana’s 10-year statute of repose applied to plaintiff’s 1994 purchase of said gun, and that defendant’s installation of conversion kit did not constitute exception to said statute of repose, since conversion kit did not increase existing risk of gun to unexpectedly discharge. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding opinion of plaintiff’s expert, who stated that there was increased risk of unexpected discharge after plaintiff had installed conversion kit, where expert’s opinion lacked evidentiary support, and where expert’s theory was purportedly based only on “common sense.”