Subject line is a quote from an Western District of Arkansas US District Court ruling[*] dated yesterday, although it isn't any main finding, just an "undisputed fact" for legal purposes. The main points in the ruling are that the involved metal suppliers and metal fabricators don't bear liability for the 2019 death of a young man, Parker L., who wore `armor` from a Texas company, Black Diamond Body Armor[*] while a `friend` shot at him with a rifle firing .223 FMJ.
[*] egBlack Diamond purchased "certified MIL-DTL-46100E ... steel from Leeco" that was delivered to Arkansas Machine Works and/or D&F Equipment Sales. The plaintiffs went after those companies with claims that they "improperly bent and cut the steel, rendering it unfit for its intended use as body armor", via the idea "that AMW and D&F???s cutting or bending the steel created weak, hard, or brittle spots that caused Parker???s injuries".
A lot of the judgement is not-so-interesting stuff about statute of limitations details, plus technicalities of "breach of warranty" and "strict products liability" claims, with a few metal-working items scattered through, eg: "Plaintiffs conceded the lack of proof to support their theory of liability based on improper cutting and bending...", "AMW and D&F offered expert testimony to support their contention that the cutting and bending had no effect on the steel???s strength and thus could not have contributed to Parker[???s] injury", "Based on Plaintiffs??? Brief ... the Court can identify three alleged potential defects: that the wrong type of steel was used in the armor; that the subject steel???s Brinell Hardness fell below MIL-46100 standards; and that Black Diamond represented the steel as being NIJ Level 4 rated" (which it isn't). "All three theories are resolved by the conclusion that AMW and D&F are not suppliers of body armor under the statute".