Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—WEAPONS AND FIREARMS—D.P.R.: Negligence case against gun manufacturer met pleading standard, remaining claims dismissed, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

Injured police officer did not meet pleading standard for products liability or representation claims.

A police officer who sustained a serious injury to her arm when her pistol fell and misfired did not adequately plead claims for products liability, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against the manufacturer of the weapon, but her negligence claim was sufficiently pleaded, the federal district court of Puerto Rico ruled, granting the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss on all claims but for negligence (Freytes v. Taurus Int’l Mfg., Inc., No. 25-1594 (SCC) (D.P.R. Aug. 4, 2026)).

Background. The police officer was injured when her TIMI-manufactured semiautomatic Taurus GX4 pistol fell from her belt and discharged when it struck the ground. The unintentional firing struck her arm, fracturing the bone. She required extensive care to repair the injury that caused her to miss four months of work, in addition to causing “other permanent physical and psychological limitations.” She filed a negligence and products liability-based lawsuit against TIMI. In lieu of a response, TIMI filed the present motion to dismiss.

Negligence. According to the Puerto Rico Civil Code, a negligence claim must adequately assert that there was evidence of a physical or emotional injury, there was a negligent or intentional act or mission, and there was a sufficient causal nexus between the injury and the act or omission. The court was satisfied by the officer’s pleadings, at this stage in the litigation. Specifically, she alleged that the manufacturer had not exercised reasonable care and diligence, which led to TIMI not identifying and remedying the purported defective trigger mechanism. The officer linked this alleged negligence to her injury caused by the unintentional discharge of the gun. Accordingly, assuming these allegations as true, she met the pleading standard to overcome the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.

Strict products liability. However, under the applicable blanket rule of strict liability of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the officer did not adequately plead her claim. First, she failed to state anything beyond a recitation of the legal standard when claiming that there was a manufacturing defect that deviated from the original design. Further, she did not explain how the Taurus GX4 failed to perform as it had been designed.

Second, her claim that the design was unreasonably dangerous also was insufficiently supported. Although she stated that the trigger moved rear-ward when the gun was dropped or otherwise subjected to an impact, the officer did not allege how an ordinary consumer’s expectations were not met by the quality of the weapon or how its design lacked usefulness. Her “blanket allegations” did not meet the plausibility standard.

Finally, her failure to adequately warn claim also was insufficient to survive dismissal because she did not proffer adequate factual allegations or state much beyond the legal standard. The court found that the failure to warn claim was implausible on its face because there was no support that the accidental discharge would not have occurred if there had been a proper warning. Consequently, the court dismissed these claims.

Misrepresentation. Similarly, the officer’s claims that TIMI made negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations fell below the plausibility standard. The court stated that there was no clear explanation spelling out how negligent misrepresentation was the proximate cause of her injuries. The officer’s reliance on the manufacturer’s statements that the weapon was “made from defects in material, function, and workmanship” was not enough to support the legally necessary inference of proximate causation.

Under the heightened pleading standard for fraudulent misrepresentation, the court held that the officer’s assertion was insufficient. Specifically, the officer contended that the manufacturer knew its representation as to the quality of the gun was false without providing any detail as to the “who, what, where, and when” required under the law. Therefore, these claims were dismissed.

Remaining claims. The court observed that the officer waived three claims and dismissed them with prejudice. The punitive damages claim is not a separate cause of action and, as a remedy, cannot be determined at this point in the litigation. Finally, the officer’s motion to amend was also denied because the request was “informal and nonspecific.” Consequently, only the negligence claim survived the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 25-1594 (SCC).

Judge: Carreño-Coll, S.

Attorneys: David C. Indiano-Vicic (Indiano & Williams, PSC) for Aleida Escalera-Freytes. Monica Del Pilar Ramos-Benitez (Ferraiuoli LLC) for Taurus International Manufacturing Inc.

Companies: Taurus International Manufacturing Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DefensesLiabilityNews WeaponsFirearmsNews PuertoRicoNews