MADISON, Wis. (Legal Newsline) - A gun store must defend itself against claims it assembled a gun incorrectly even after the gun’s owner, once also a defendant in the case, destroyed evidence at the center of the lawsuit and entered into a settlement shifting all remaining liability to the store, a Wisconsin appeals court ruled.
The fact the plaintiff and gun owner were brothers didn’t affect the appeals court’s analysis of the situation.
Tyler Mueller sued Bull’s Eye Sports Shop after an AR-15 he borrowed from his brother Jordan accidentally discharged in November 2017, severely injuring his foot. Police immediately impounded the gun. A week later, Tyler texted his brother, saying if the police returned the gun, “don’t use it or clean it or anything, just put it in your cabinet, cause if we go after bullseye for it that will void everything.”
Jordan recovered the gun in January 2018 and took it to Bull’s Eye, where an employee disassembled it at his instructions. A critical part remains missing, leading Bull’s Eye to claim Jordan destroyed evidence knowing it would be used against him in threatened litigation.
Jordan and his wife sued Bull’s Eye and Cincinnati Insurance in May 2018. The gun then store sued Jordan, blaming him for the accident. Tyler followed by adding Jordan and his insurer, American Modern Property and Casualty, as defendants in his lawsuit.
Tyler and the gun store then filed separate motions against Jordan for spoliating the gun evidence, saying he knew the condition of the gun would be a central question in the litigation.
A month later Bull’s Eye learned Tyler and Jordan had entered into a so-called Pierringer release under which Jordan’s insurance company paid Tyler $300,000. The agreement shifted any remaining liability to Bull’s Eye and prohibited it from seeking compensation from Jordan.
A month after that, the insurance company filed another motion for sanctions, accusing Jordan of destroying cell phone data and records. The trial court ordered the jury to be instructed that it could infer Jordan destroyed evidence because it was harmful to his case. But the judge refused to dismiss claims against Bull’s Eye, saying Jordan’s actions weren’t “egregious,” the standard for more severe sanctions.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed. In an April 29 decision, the court said the fact Jordan settled all claims with his brother doesn’t mean the gun shop should be let off the hook.
“Bull’s Eye contends that Tyler, as an innocent party regarding Jordan’s spoliation of evidence, should, in the exercise of the circuit court’s discretion, have his remaining claims in this lawsuit dismissed,” the appeals court wrote. “Here, there is no finding of the circuit court, and no evidence, that any action by Tyler either spoliated evidence or was egregious. As a result, there is no basis to dismiss Tyler’s claims against Bull’s Eye as a sanction.”