Katzenmeier v. Blackpowder Prods., Inc., No. 09-1146

By FindLaw Staff on December 13, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Personal Injury Action Involving Allegedy Defective Rifle

In Katzenmeier v. Blackpowder Prods., Inc., No. 09-1146, a personal injury action arising out of an alleged defect in a muzzleloader rifle manufactured and distributed by defendants, the court affirmed judgment for defendants where 1) certain prior incidents of which plaintiff sought to introduce evidence were not "substantially similar" to plaintiff's accident, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the evidence; 2) defendant did not offer certain alleged hearsay testimony for the truth of what a proof house said, but rather to demonstrate the reasons for the company's marking procedures; and 3) certain witnesses' testimony was not so fundamentally unsupported that it could offer no assistance to the jury.


As the court wrote:  "Appellant Jon D. Katzenmeier was injured when a muzzleloader rifle manufactured and distributed by Blackpowder Products, Inc., (Blackpowder) and Dikar S. Coop. LTDA, exploded when he fired it for the first time. Dikar, a Spanish business organization, designs and manufactures muzzleloading firearms, and exclusively exports to Blackpowder, its U.S. subsidiary, muzzleloader rifles to market and sell to consumers in the United States.2 Katzenmeier brought a product liability action, and his wife, Julie, asserted a claim for loss of consortium. The case was tried to a jury."

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard