Halliday v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc

Facts

Jordan, a three-year-old, shot himself to death while playing with his father's handgun. Jordan’s father, Garris, purchased the gun and declined a free safety course. The gun came with a pamphlet entitled “Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice,” a lockbox in which to store the gun and the magazine, and a padlock for the box. There was a dispute as to whether the retailer recommended that a separate trigger lock for the gun should be purchased. The instruction manual provided multiple warnings and instructions regarding the storage and use of the gun. On the cover of the manual, and embossed on the barrel of the gun itself, was an admonition to read the manual before using the gun. Among other warnings and instructions in the manual is a highlighted box entitled “WARNING -STORAGE” in which, in red letters, is the statement “Firearms should always be stored securely and unloaded, away from children and careless adults” and the statement, in capital letters, “STORE SECURELY AND UNLOADED.” In the part on “THE BASIC RULES OF SAFE FIREARMS HANDLING,” which itself is in red capital letters, is a section headed, in red capital letters, “FIREARMS SHOULD BE UNLOADED WHEN NOT IN USE,” and in that section is the warning: “Firearms and ammunition should be securely locked in racks or cabinets when not in use. Ammunition should be safely stored separate from firearms. Store your firearms out of sight of visitors and children. It is the gun owner’s responsibility to be certain that children and persons unfamiliar with firearms cannot gain access to firearms, ammunition, or components.” Garris signed an acknowledgment that the On Target salesperson explained the instruction manual, the safety lever, and the action of the gun. The Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice warned Garris, in highlighted letters, that the misuse of handguns was a leading contributor to juvenile violence and fatalities and that “safely storing and securing firearms away from children will help prevent the unlawful possession of handguns by juveniles, stop accidents, and save lives.” Garris disregarded virtually every one of these warnings and opportunities. He did not store either the gun or the magazine in the lock box but rather placed the gun under his mattress and kept the loaded magazine on a bookshelf in the same room, so that it was visible and accessible to Jordan. Jordan found the handgun under his father’s mattress. He also found the loaded magazine. From watching television, the child knew how to load the magazine into the gun, and he did so. While playing with the gun, he apparently pulled the slide and thereby placed a bullet into the chamber. Either the safety lever was in the “fire” position already, or Jordan moved it there. He then pulled the trigger, shot himself in the head, and died two days later. He was three years old. P sued D alleging both a design defect in the gun and inadequate warnings. P alleged that the design “failed to incorporate reasonable devices to prevent its use by young children,” in particular “one or more of the following: a grip safety, a heavy trigger-pull, a child-resistant manual safety, a built-in lock, a trigger lock, and/or personalized gun technology that would have substantially reduced the likelihood that a child could fire the gun . . . .” P contends that “it was foreseeable that the gun would be found and handled by a young child, and that it would be fired by a young child, with resulting foreseeable grievous or fatal injury to the child and/or others.” P contends that D has been aware of the problem since the 1880s and has developed safety grips but refused to manufacture the guns with them. D filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the latter based on the assertions that (1) as a matter of law, the gun was not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous, and (2) it was used in a manner that was contrary to the clearly worded instructions and warnings that accompanied the product when sold, and was therefore misused. P urged that Garris’s failure to heed the warnings and keep the gun securely locked was not a defense to liability because that also was foreseeable. P contends the court should apply a “risk-utility” analysis in lieu of a “consumer expectation” test and hold that the gun in question failed that preferred test because (1) the risk of excluding child safety features outweighs the utility of that exclusion, and (2) alternative safer designs could have been adopted economically. The court held that the risk-utility test applied only when the product malfunctioned and that the gun in question did not malfunction. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed holding that the risk-utility test did not apply to a product, including a gun, that did not malfunction.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.