Legal Environment of Business

This case takes place in the Supreme Court of California. This is a state court case. It is a civil case, appealed by the plaintiffs, from the trial court decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, agreeing with the trial courts initial decision. This case was decided in 2001.

Issue: Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that plaintiffs may hold Navegar liable on a common law negligence theory?

Facts: The plaintiffs and appellants of this case are the survivors and victims of a shooting. In 1993, a man named Gian Luigi Ferri went on a shooting rampage in an office building in San Francisco California, killing eight people, and injuring six. Navegar Inc, the defendant, is a gun manufacturer in Miami, Florida who manufactured two of the three guns he used in the shooting. They are being sued for negligence based on common law negligence theory.

Navegar is the company that manufactures the TEC-9, a semi automatic pistol. The company advertised the TEC-9 models in many gun related magazines. They also distributed advertising brochures that claimed that the finish of the TEC provides a “natural lubicity to increase bullet velocities, excellent resistance to finger prints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues. Salt spray corrosion resistance, expansion and contraction of the metal will not result in peeling of finish.”

In 1993, Ferri went to a Pawn & Gun shop in Henderson, Nevada, where he purchased a TEC-9. According to store employees he had been to the store many times prior to his purchase, inquiring about guns. He was looking for “high capacity” guns that were compact and could hold lots of rounds. He purchased a TEC-9 disregarding the employee, who was trying to persuade him to purchase a more expensive model. Later that day, he returned the gun stating that he wanted a different gun. In April, Ferri bought a new gun, a TEC-DC9 from a Super Pawn in Las Vegas. The store got the gun from an Arizona distributor, who bought the gun from Navegar. The salesperson showed Ferri two guns, a TEC and a Glock, although he only seemed to be interested in the TEC. A customer in the store tried to entice him to buy the Glock, saying that it was better than the TEC, yet Ferri chose to purchase the TEC-DC9 anyway. In May, Ferri purchased another TEC gun from a Utah dealer at a Las Vegas gun show. The dealer obtained the gun from an Ohio dealer, who initially got it from Navegar. The TEC-DC9 was the only gun they were selling at the show. All of the purchases of the TEC were legal. The required questions were asked with regards to Ferri’s criminal history and residency. He also showed a Nevada driver’s license that appeared to be legal.

On July 1, 1993, Ferri entered a California office building. He was carrying the three TDC’s, as well as a .45-caluber Norinco pistol, in a briefcase and another bag. His guns were loaded with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He also had added the TEC-DC9’s Hell Fire trigger systems which would make the weapons fire rapid bursts. Ferri started shooting when he entered the office of a law firm, which he had a grudge against. He shot and killed eight people, wounded six, and then proceeded to shoot and kill himself.

During an investigation of Ferri’s apartment, police found two TEC manuals, one catalog, and two price lists. The investigators also found many gun related magazines and advertisements, none of which advertised the TEC guns. Therefore, police concluded that there was no evidence that showed that Ferri traveled to Nevada to purchase those exact models of guns.

The plaintiffs of the case brought a lawsuit against Navegar for common law negligence. They claimed that Navegar “acted negligently by manufacturing, marketing, and making available for sale to the general public the TEC-9/DC9”. It was argued that they should have known that the gun could be associated with criminal activity and may be enticing to criminals due to its firepower, especially with the extra enhancements that they made for increased firepower. It was also argued that they knew, or at least should have known, that the TEC is a small, easily concealable, military assault weapon, made military style, with the capabilities of killing lots of people, and that it may be used by a criminal for this purpose. The plaintiffs also claimed that the company should be held strictly liable because they made a gun available for purchase that resulted in a dangerous activity. It was also argued that they should be held negligent per se. “As to negligence per se, plaintiffs alleged that Navegar violated the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act by advertising the TEC-9/DC9 in California and that this advertising ‘was the direct and legal cause in bringing about plaintiffs’ injuries’ because it ‘was a substantial factor in causing Ferri to acquire’ the Navegar weapons he used” (Google Scholar).

Navegar filed for a summary judgment arguing in response to the common law negligence claim that they did not have any duty not to advertise the gun, and also that there was no clear evidence that Ferri was affected by their advertisements.

Procedure: The trial court granted the defendant Navegar’s request for summary judgment. The reason was that they found no disputed material issues of fact as to whether their conduct breached a duty of care due, since there is no liability imposed on parties for injuries arising from legally manufacturing firearms. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division Two. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. The plaintiff then filed for a petition for review so the case went on to be reviewed at the Supreme Court of California.

Decision of the Case: The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, agreeing with the trial court’s decision to grant a summary judgment because there was no evidence of factual issue. Under the circumstances, the section 1714.4 applies regarding a gun manufacturer’s liability; therefore the plaintiffs could not proceed with their negligence claim.