TOPEKA, Kan. (Legal Newsline) - The Kansas Supreme Court won't let the maker of a gun be sued over the accidental shooting of a teenager, reversing a lower court ruling that had the case headed for trial.
Finding federal law protects companies like Beretta and Bass Pro from liability over firearms injuries, the Supreme Court on April 25 overturned a May 2024 ruling from the state Court of Appeals.
Andre Lewis committed a criminal act when he fired the gun on a public street, triggering the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the Supreme Court found. Plaintiff Marquise Johnson had argued Lewis did not act with a culpable mental state to commit a crime, because he did not mean for the gun to go off while he was showing Johnson how to take it apart.
"Indeed, such a fact dispute would ordinarily preclude summary judgment on the PLCAA immunity issue - only a jury could resolve the disputed evidence on the mental-state element of the offense and determine whether the act was criminal," Justice K.J. Wall wrote.
"But Lewis discharged the gun on a public road in violation of (Kansas criminal law). And under Kansas law, this is a strict-liability crime. It does not require a party to act with a culpable mental state."
Johnson sued Lewis, the maker of the gun (Beretta) and the distributor (Bass Pro), alleging the gun lacked a magazine disconnect that prevents guns from firing when the magazine has been removed.
Lewis was found to have acted reckless by not reading the manual or a warning printed on the gun, then pointing it at Johnson and pulling the trigger. Lyon District Court Judge Merlin Wheeler granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Johnson cited a product defect exception in the PLCAA. The exception doesn't apply when discharge is caused by a "volitional act that constituted a criminal offense." Lewis faced no criminal charges for shooting Johnson.
Johnson said the discharge was not volitional because Lewis did not intend to fire a bullet when he pulled the trigger, while the defendants said the PLCAA preempts claims when a gun functions as designed.
Since Lewis was more familiar with a gun that required a trigger-pull to disassemble it (which is what he was trying to do with his new Beretta), the jury can decide whether there is a product defect, the Court of Appeals said.
But the Supreme Court overturned, validating Judge Amy Cline, who dissented in the Court of Appeals opinion.
"I do not believe reasonable minds could differ on whether Lewis consciously disregarded substantial and unjustifiable risks created by his conduct and his disregard was a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise," she wrote.