Judge Says Remington’s Gun Injury Settlement for Child Lacks Sufficient Information

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has declined to approve a settlement between gunmaker Remington Arms and a parent of a child injured when his grandfather’s gun allegedly misfired without the trigger being pulled.

U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane found that the sealed settlement proposal lacks sufficient information for the court to determine either the fairness of the deal for the grandchild or the reasonableness of the 40% fee for the attorney. The judge also questioned whether continuing the preliminary sealing of the proposed settlement is in the public interest.

The minor grandchild’s claims have been separated from the plaintiffs’ original product liability complaint, which alleges that the rifle discharged on its own—”without a trigger pull”—due to a design, manufacturing, or other defect. The defendants won an order severing the mother’s claims on behalf of her child from the grandfather’s so that they could assert a contribution claim against the grandfather, which they did.

Remington has denied the underlying product liability allegations that the gun fired without the pull of its trigger.

On December 1, 2018, plaintiff David Farence claims that a bullet discharged from his rifle and struck and seriously injured his minor grandchild. Farence and the child’s mother, Jessica Olinick, sued in July 2020.

On July 8, 2022, Olinick asked the judge to approve a settlement for her injured child, a proposal she declared is in her child’s best interests.

But Judge Kane declined to approve it, finding that Olinick’s proposal is deficient because it fails to provide a complete picture of the scope of the child’s injuries and the reasons Olinick believes the proposed settlement is fair.

The judge pointed out that the only facts indicated in Olinick’s sealed motion are that the child sustained a bullet wound, spent three days in the hospital, underwent surgery to clean and close the wound, as well as three additional out-patient procedures to drain the wound, and required six months’ healing time. The court noted that the motion does not speak to the full extent of both past and future injuries alleged by Olinick—namely, the allegations of “mental and physical pain and suffering, permanent disability, disfigurement, loss of established course of life, emotional and mental distress, and other general and special damages.” Nor, the judge added, does the motion state the reasons Olinick believes the proposed settlement is fair.

The judge noted that Dauphin County, where the case is based, employs a presumptive attorney fee of 25% of the gross settlement amount whereas the lawyer for Olinick seeks to collect 40%. “Because the 40% contingency fee exceeds Dauphin County’s lodestar fee, the court must determine whether counsel has made a sufficient showing as to why the additional 15% fee is fair and reasonable,” Judge Kane wrote.

The court said that while the plaintiff and her counsel are in the “best position to evaluate the settlement,” and that their judgments are “entitled to considerable weight,” the court must make an independent evaluation with regard to the fairness of the settlement value to the minor.

The judge ordered the parties to submit a justification for continuing to seal the proposal when submitting a revised settlement proposal.

Remington filed for bankruptcy in 2020 after selling off its profitable business in a series of transactions involving Sporting Goods Properties and its parent DuPont.

Topics Legislation Gun Liability