Products Liability

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: David Hakim v. Safariland, LLC

Case No.: 22-1861

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Flaum and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Products Liability

Hakim, a member of the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) SWAT team was accidentally shot by a fellow officer during a training session. The training exercise involved the use of a Safariland “breaching” shotgun round, designed to assist in door-breaking operations by incapacitating door hinges and attachments on doorframes. Ideally, these rounds should disintegrate harmlessly upon impact with metal components. However, in this case, the officer missed the intended target—a door hinge—and instead struck a wooden surface. The round remained intact and struck Hakim in his spine, leading to a prolonged recovery period of 13 months, involving multiple surgeries and ongoing severe pain.

Hakim responded to this ordeal by initiating legal action against Safariland under the strict product liability law of Illinois. His claims against the company revolved around allegations of defects in both the manufacturing and design of the Safariland round. Additionally, Hakim argued that Safariland had neglected to provide adequate warnings regarding the behavior of their rounds if they collided with wood rather than metal surfaces.

Following the legal proceedings, a jury rendered their verdict. While they sided with Safariland on the allegations of manufacturing and design defects, they awarded Hakim $7.5 million in relation to his claim that Safariland had failed to provide sufficient warnings. The Seventh Circuit Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the complexity of the rounds did not mandate expert testimony for every product liability claim concerning them. The court reasoned that it was within the realm of reason for the jury to conclude that Safariland’s warnings were inadequate. Moreover, even if the DCSO’s potential negligence played a role, Safariland’s own failure to provide adequate warnings could be seen as a contributing factor to Hakim’s injuries. The court also noted that while the $7.5 million award might be considered somewhat generous, it did not stray into the realm of unreasonableness.

In summary, the case of Hakim, the DCSO SWAT officer, brought into focus the intricacies of product liability law and the responsibilities of manufacturers to provide accurate warnings. The court’s decision highlighted the importance of balancing complex product features with clear communication to ensure safety and prevent unfortunate incidents like the one suffered by Hakim.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/21/23

Full Text