Strict-Liability Causation in Firearms Defect Claims: Forfeiture of Untimely Dual-Defect Theories

Introduction

Donald and Jillian Lyons sued Saeilo, Inc., d.b.a. Kahr Arms, in the Northern District of Alabama after Donald sustained severe injuries when his 9 mm Kahr CW9 semi-automatic pistol “drop-fired” upon impact with a concrete floor. The Lyonses pled a single strict-liability claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), alleging two independent defects: an “Inertial-Energy” defect (inertial force disabling the striker-fire safety upon drop) and a “Disconnector-Tab” defect (damage or debris in the disconnector cavity leading to a partial trigger pull). The district court excluded the expert testimony on the inertial-energy theory under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and granted summary judgment on the disconnector-tab theory for lack of proof of causation. The Lyonses appealed, arguing that the two defects worked in tandem to cause the accident.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed. It held that:

The Lyonses abandoned any argument that the two defects operated together because they never presented that theory in the district court or in their opening appellate brief. Under this Circuit’s forfeiture and waiver doctrines, new, fact-intensive theories raised first at oral argument come too late.
Even if a dual-defect, in-tandem theory had been preserved, summary judgment was still proper on the merits. The Inertial-Energy defect was inadmissible and insufficient to show a discharge. The Disconnector-Tab defect—whether by wear-and-tear or debris—rested on speculation, lacking any evidence that foreign material entered the pistol during foreseeable use or was present at the time of the incident. Without proof of a partial trigger pull, there is no proximate cause under the AEMLD.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): Governs admissibility of expert testimony.
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004): Refusal to consider an issue not raised in the district court.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014): Abandonment of perfunctorily raised issues on appeal.
Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1976) & Atkins v. American Motors Corp., 335 So. 2d 134 (Ala. 1976): Establish the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine.
DISA Indus. v. Bell, 272 So. 3d 142 (Ala. 2018): Strict-liability requires proof of a defect, causation, and traceability.
Verchot v. General Motors Corp., 812 So. 2d 296 (Ala. 2001): Causation in fact under AEMLD demands proof that a defect in the product as sold caused the injury.
McMahon v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 95 So. 3d 769 (Ala. 2012): Defines “defective” for product-liability purposes.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two principal steps:

Procedural Forfeiture. The Lyonses never presented an in-tandem, dual-defect theory in the district court, nor in their opening brief. Late-stage attempts to morph two independent theories into a combined causation theory first came at oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit. Under Access Now and Sapuppo, the court refused to entertain a brand-new, fact-intensive theory of causation.
Merits of Causation. Even if preserved, the dual-defect theory fails. Under the AEMLD a plaintiff must establish proximate cause by showing that the defect existing at sale caused the injury (but-for causation). Here:
- The Inertial-Energy theory was excluded under Daubert: the expert’s tests produced no drop-fires absent manipulation of the disconnector tab, and no reliable methodology connected inertial force alone to a discharge.
- The Disconnector-Tab theory depends entirely on either unusual wear-and-tear or intrusion of debris. The expert admitted the observed damage was not the result of routine use and that friction alone never produced a partial trigger pull. Nor did the expert ever find debris in the actual pistol at the time of the incident. Absent evidence that debris could enter during normal operation or was present in Donald’s gun, no reasonable juror could find proximate cause.

Potential Impact

Lyons v. Saeilo reinforces key lessons for product-liability litigation:

Timely Disclosure of Theories. The forfeiture doctrine may bar late-arriving legal theories, especially those dependent on fact-intensive expert proof.
Rigorous Causation Proof. Under the AEMLD, proximate cause is not presumed; plaintiffs must adduce non-speculative, fact-based proof that a defect in the product as sold directly caused the injury.
Daubert Vigilance. Expert evidence on novel mechanical or firearms-specific defect theories must meet strict reliability and relevance requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

AEMLD (Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine): A strict-liability rule under which a manufacturer is responsible if a product is defective, the defect causes injury, and the product is traceable to the manufacturer.
Daubert Standard: Federal rule governing admissibility of expert testimony; requires methods and principles to be scientifically valid and applicable to the facts at issue.
Proximate (But-For) Causation: The defect must be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, i.e., but for the defect, the injury would not have occurred.
Summary Judgment: A court’s decision to end a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact for a jury to decide.
Drop-Fire Incident: An unintended discharge of a firearm caused by the gun striking a surface, allegedly due to internal safety failures or mechanical defects.

Conclusion

Lyons v. Saeilo underscores the critical interplay between procedural rules and substantive proof in strict-liability product cases. Plaintiffs must timely disclose all causation theories and develop them with reliable expert support. Under the AEMLD, proving every element—particularly proximate cause—is indispensable. This decision will guide future litigants in presenting coherent, fully developed defect theories and caution them against last-minute strategic shifts that courts may deem forfeited.