O'Neal v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, No. 14-2883 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseRemington manufactured O’Neal’s Model 700 .243 caliber bolt-action rifle in 1971, using the “Walker trigger.” As early as 1979, Remington knew that the Walker trigger can cause the rifles to fire a round when the safety lever is released to the fire position, without the trigger being pulled, because of the manner in which components of the trigger mechanism interact. Remington estimated that at least 20,000 rifles would inadvertently fire merely by releasing the safety, but decided against a recall. O'Neal, deer hunting with friends, loaned his Remington Model 700 to Ritter. The hunters were traveling in a pickup truck when they spotted a deer. After the pickup stopped, Ritter began to exit the truck and moved the safety lever on the rifle to the fire position without pulling the trigger. The rifle discharged. The cartridge traveled through the pickup seat and hit O’Neal, who eventually died from the gunshot. The gun had had three owners; it had been loaned out several times. In a suit by O’Neal’s widow, the court granted Remington summary judgment on grounds that O'Neal could not show whether the alleged defect existed at the time of manufacture or resulted from subsequent modification. The Eighth Circuit reversed: South Dakota law permits a plaintiff to prove a product defect through circumstantial evidence. O'Neal presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the alleged defect was present at the time of manufacture and did not result from an alteration.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products liability. In action alleging a defect in a Model 700 rifle manufactured by defendant in 1971, plaintiff produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the alleged defect was present at the time of manufacture and was not the result of subsequent alteration or modification; the record showed the rifle was equipped with a so-called "Walker" trigger mechanism which has been shown to cause inadvertent discharges of the rifle; while the owner of the rifle acquired it in the mid-1980s (the rifle was destroyed after the accident)and cannot account, therefore for any post-manufacture modification from 1970 to the time the rifle was acquired, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that it was not modified for plaintiff's action to survive a motion for summary judgment. Judge Loken, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.