A Philadelphia jury has hit a firearms accessories manufacturer with a $2.6 million verdict for an allegedly defective holster that caused a state trooper's gun to fire into his leg while he was exiting his vehicle.

The jury awarded Pennsylvania State Police Officer Jesse Oleksza the money Oct. 18 after finding that a holster designed and manufactured by Gould & Goodrich Inc. was defective. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Daniel J. Anders oversaw the case.

The case was not only a decisive win for the plaintiff, but it is also one of the first wave of products liability cases to hit trial after the state Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, said Sacchetta and Baldino attorney Gerald B. Baldino, who represented Oleksza.

“Post-Tincher, at this point, it’s the Wild, Wild West,” Baldino said. He added that, although there were numerous summary judgment motions and motions in limine regarding uncharted products liability issues, Anders was very “thorough” and open to arguments from all sides to ensure he made the right legal rulings.

Baldino said the number of witnesses who testified for Oleksza, including about ten state troopers, and the factual evidence that was considered was effective in front of the jury.

“In almost all cases, it’s either putting the gun in the holster, or pulling it out of the holster, where the trigger is pulled, but in this case, all the evidence indicated it was in the holster,” he said, adding that gunshot residue and scuffmarks on the holster also provided key factual evidence indicating the gun was in the holster when it fired.

Baldino said the jury was also shown other holsters that provided for more trigger protection,

The jury was asked to decide whether the defect was a cause of harm under the consumer expectations test and the risk utility test, both of which are tests that Tincher recommended be incorporated into products liability cases.

Due to the dispute over whether the holster allowed a foreign object to get into the trigger area, the jury questionnaire also included a set of questions asking whether the gun holster simply malfunctioned. Finding that there was a defect in the holster, the jury did not reach those questions.

According to Oleksza’s pretrial memo, he was returning his police vehicle to the station and was attempting to retrieve his gym bag when the gun, a Glock 37 semiautomatic pistol, went off. The gun had been holstered in a Gould & Goodrich double retention holster on his right hip.

At first Oleksza thought the shotgun in his vehicle, which his gym bag had been attached to, had fired, the memo said. However, according to the memo, a foreign object, likely a key, had lodged itself in the holster and caused the gun to fire. The memo said Oleksza had been holding a set of keys when he tried to retrieve his gym bag, and added that there was also a set of keys attached to his duty bag and another set attached to his duty belt.

The memo said an internal affairs investigation cleared Oleksza of any wrongdoing, and an analysis from the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Forensic Services also confirmed that the gun could be discharged by inserting a key into the holster and then applying pressure, the memo said.

In the lawsuit, Oleksza contended that the holster was defective for failing to properly protect the trigger. He sought recovery on negligence, strict liability and breach of implied warranty claims.

The bullet, according to Oleksza’s memo, hit his thigh and lodged in his ankle after it transected the peroneal nerve in his knee. He contended that the injuries led to permanent scarring and numbness in his leg, and also led to hip problems.

Gould & Goodrich, in its pretrial memo, contended that the warnings on the holster included making sure foreign objects stayed out of the holster while the gun was holstered, and, as part of his training, Oleksza had been aware of the need to keep objects out of the holster. The memo also said a state police investigation found no holster defect.

Gould & Goodrich also contended that it was not possible to design a holster that prevents all objects from getting inside, and argued that it was more likely that Oleksza had accidentally pulled the trigger while he was distracted.

Defendant Markl, which had supplied the holster to the state police, contended that it played no role in selection or designing the holster. Markl noted in its pretrial memo that it had a cross claim against Gould & Goodrich for common-law indemnity.

Attorney Mark Merlini of Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, which represented Gould & Goodrich, and Todd B. Narvol of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer declined to comment.

A woman who suffered arm injuries after being attacked by a Rottweiler in Chester County settled for a combined $1.9 million between the dog owner and the distributor of a tether cord the dog allegedly broke free from right before the attack.

The case Schickram v. Boss Pet Products was in the middle of jury selection in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court March 5 when plaintiffs Evelyn and Larry Schickram settled with Boss Pet Products for $1.6 million. The Schickrams had previously settled with the dog owner, Pamela Leader, for $300,000 — the policy limits of her homeowners’ insurance, according to court papers and the plaintiffs’ attorney, Thomas F. Sacchetta of Sacchetta & Baldino in Media, Pa.

Evelyn and Larry Schickram were driving to a home inspection prior to the purchase of a house on Chestnut Grove Road in Chester County in June 2006. When Evelyn got out of the car, a 118-pound Rottweiler that had allegedly broken free from a dog tie-out cable in the next-door neighbor’s yard attacked her.

According to the Schickrams’ pre-trial memorandum, the attack was so severe “flesh was torn from her body and strewn throughout the area.” Schickram was taken from the scene by a medevac helicopter to a local trauma center.

Ultimately, she made a strong recovery, suffering scarring on her left arm and some chronic pain after surgery in her right arm. She is expected to have continued pain and both sides’ medical experts agreed she reached her maximum expected recovery. She was able to return to her job as an information technology manager, but could no longer lift heavy objects, Sacchetta said.

After settling with the homeowner, who had immediately after the attack turned the dog over to be put down, Schickram sued the tether cord distributor Boss Pet Products, seller PetSmart and the China-based manufacturer Shanghai Kington Trading Co. Sacchetta said PetSmart had an indemnification agreement with Boss so they shared representation — Walter H. “Pete” Swayze III and Brian W. Franklin of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

The plaintiffs had argued prior to settlement that there was a design defect with the tether cord in that the plastic covering along the cable stopped an inch before the clasp, allowing for water and the elements to corrode the cable, Sacchetta said. Sometimes that could be seen by the owner and other times not, he said.

In Schickram , Sacchetta said the dog owner had the tether cord for less than a year and it was sold for dogs up to 250 pounds. The plaintiffs argued the cord should have been made out of stainless steel, rather than galvanized steel, because it wouldn’t have corroded. They also argued the cable should have been covered up to the snap, he said.

The defense argued stainless steel allows for notching, which also could have caused the cable to break. The defendants also looked to put the blame on the dog owner. According to their pretrial memorandum, Boss Pet and PetSmart argued that upon purchase Leader tied the cord around a tree and left it there for a year to be exposed to the elements. They said the cable was visibly worn and rusted in various locations and Leader should have stopped using it, according to the court papers.

The defense also argued the product came with adequate warnings that the cord wasn’t meant for use with “‘mean or vicious dogs'” and that not all pets can be effectively tethered. The defense also raised the argument that the dog may not have been tethered at all at the time of the incident because Leader had two other dogs she admittedly let roam free and who were out at the time of the incident, according to court documents. Sacchetta said he thought he had a pretty strong case going into trial even if the defendants were looking to put the blame on Leader because, under strict liability rules, alleged negligence of an owner doesn’t negate a design defect.

Sacchetta said he and his client were pleased with the settlement. They were seeking around $2 million going into trial and the offer at that point was about $900,000, he said. Sacchetta admitted he would have had some trouble showing loss of future income at trial but was going to present it in case Schickram lost her job and had trouble finding another because of her remaining limitations. He said she is lucky to have an understanding employer.

Defense attorney Swayze didn’t return a call for comment by press time. •

Reprinted with permission from the “ISSUE DATE” edition of the “PUBLICATION.” © “2010”
ALM Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.