Product Liability. In January 1999, John Clark of Clarksdale, Mississippi, bought a paintball gun. Clark practiced with the gun and knew how to screw in the CO cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. He hunted and had taken a course in

Question

hunter safety education. He knew that protective eyewear was available for purchase, but he chose not to buy it. Clark also understood that it was "common sense" not to shoot anyone in the face. Chris Rico, another Clarksdale resident, owned a paintball gun made by Brass Eagle, Inc Rico was similarly familiar with the gun's use and its risks. At that time and place, Clark, Rico, and their friends played a game that involved shooting paintballs at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Clark and Rico were cruising with their guns, Rico shot at Clark's car but hit Clark in the eye. Clark filed a suit in a Mississippi state court against Brass Eagle to recover for the injury, alleging in part that its gun was defectively designed. During the trial, Rico testified that his gun "never malfunctioned." In whose favor should the court rule? Why?

Answer 1

Product liability
Brass Eagle filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, finding that the gun did not malfunction and performed exactly as Clark and Rico expected. The court also determined that Clark and Rico appreciated the danger of using the guns without protective eyewear. Clark appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The state supreme court concluded that "Clark offered no proof that the paintball gun used in the incident failed to function as expected . * * * Clark testified that he was aware that there was protective eyewear available for purchase * * * but he chose not to do so. He was an active participant in shooting paintballs at other vehicles. The evening of the incident at issue here Clark and his friends in his car carried their paintball guns with them for that purpose." Rico also "knew it was dangerous to shoot someone in the eye with a paintball gun. * * * Rico stated that he knew the purpose of the protective mask was to protect the eyes and the face from paintballs." The court stated that "[t]he most crucial testimony occurred when Rico stated the paintball gun he was using never malfunctioned. According to Rico, the paintball gun functioned properly."