October 4, 2024 – RLF recently secured another victory for a firearm industry client that manufactures a diverse selection of handguns and long guns. RLF obtained an Order excluding Plaintiffs’ “gun expert” from testifying at trial. In the case, Plaintiffs claimed that the subject pistol drop-fired while he was in a bathroom. In an effort to support their claims, Plaintiffs offered the testimony of a proposed firearm expert, Jack Belk. Though Belk never inspected Plaintiffs’ handgun, he nonetheless offered three supposed “defects” in the pistol which formed his opinion that Plaintiffs’ firearm fired when it was dropped and hit the ground. Belk did not consider alternative causes, let alone attempt to rule them out. The only bases for his unsupported opinion were a visual inspection of an exemplar firearm, his experience with bolt-action rifles, and Plaintiff’s testimony.
After presenting extensive evidence showing that the subject pistol’s design does not make it susceptible to a drop-fire, including certifications from an independent laboratory and the various states that require such testing to be sold in those jurisdictions, and presenting a viable alternative causation theory through expert testimony, RLF moved to exclude Belk from testifying pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 is a powerful tool for a litigator. It mandates that a party’s proposed expert opinion must meet certain threshold criteria to be admissible at trial. Under Rule 702, an expert (1) must be qualified to offer the proposed opinion; (2) his opinions must be “based on sufficient facts or data”; (3) the opinion must be the “product of reliable principles and methods”; and (4) the opinion must “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In our case, the court excluded Plaintiffs’ proposed expert under the third prong of the test because Belk’s opinion was not based on reliable principles and methods.
The District Court agreed with RLF’s argument that Belk’s methodology was “inadequate for admissibility.” The court explained that Belk’s theory was testable pursuant to the standards set forth by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (“SAAMI”), but Belk “conducted no testing pursuant to SAAMI’s standards, a personally developed standard, or other standardized protocol to confirm or further explore his three hypothesized mechanisms that would permit a … drop fire.” The court further explained that “without objective testing or demonstrable mechanisms to support his hypothesis,” his opinion “does not clear the bar for admissibility” under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court ultimately found that Belk’s failure to employ reliable methodology by applying industry standard testing protocols (or any testing whatsoever) rendered his proposed testimony inadmissible. The court, therefore, excluded Belk from testifying at trial.
Renzulli Law Firm will continue to defend industry clients in products liability and other litigation around the country. If you have any questions concerning this ruling or other industry issues, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.