Appeals Court -- January 6, 2012
Parties: Charles Milot died from an accidental gunshot wound. Elizabeth Ryan (Plaintiff), was the administratrix of Milot estate.Thomas Hughes (defendant) was the owner of the gun which caused the deadly wound. Glock, Inc. manufactured the gun.
Parties: Charles Milot died from an accidental gunshot wound. Elizabeth Ryan (Plaintiff), was the administratrix of Milot estate.Thomas Hughes (defendant) was the owner of the gun which caused the deadly wound. Glock, Inc. manufactured the gun.
Facts: In November, 2001, Milot was on probation after serving a prison sentence. He worked odd jobs around Hughes' house. Hughes testified that he owned several firearms, one of which was a Glock pistol, that he stored in a chest in a second-floor bedroom, which was kept locked and had barred windows. The keys to the bedroom were kept in a vase on top of the fireplace.
Milot's sister, McConologue, reported that on February 23, 2002, Milot had showed her two handguns and two loose cartridges. When she asked where he had gotten the guns, he told her that he had taken them from Hughes's house. McConologue told Milot to call Hughes and return the guns. Milot agreed to put the guns back the way he had found them.
On February 25, 2002, Hughes brought Milot to his home to repair his doorbell. Hughes left the house for two hours before going back to check on Milot's progress. Upon returning home, Hughes found Milot's body covered in blood in the front doorway of his home. An autopsy determined that he suffered a gunshot wound to his left thigh which severed the femoral artery and caused Milot to bleed to death.
Procedural History: Ryan, the administratrix of Milot's estate, filed a complaint in the Superior court, asserting claims of negligence and wrongful death. Against Glock, Inc., Ryan claimed breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, wrongful death, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The court granted each defendant's' motion for summary judgment, finding that “Hughes owed Milot no duty of care and, even if he had, any negligence on the part of Hughes did not cause Milot's death[,]” and that against Glcok, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) barred the Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff appealed.
Issue #1: Whether Hughes is liable for Milot's death?
No. Judgment Affirmed. The Court concluded that Milot's affirmative act of theft of the guns from Hughes's home was in violation of G.L.c. 226 s 30, and therefore barred the plaintiff from recovery. The court explained that public policy dictates that a plaintiff should not recover in tort for damages that resulted from his or her own criminal conduct.
Issue #2: Whether Glock is liable for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, wrongful death, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices?
No. Judgment Affirmed. The court upheld the Superior Court's decision that PLCAA barred the plaintiff's claim against Glock. In its decision, the court explained that in order to determine the applicability of the PLCAA, it must first determine whether the lawsuit is a “qualified civil liability action”which is a civil proceeding that is brought by a person against a manufacturer of a qualified product for damages or other relief, “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the party or a third party.” Second, the court must determine whether any of PLCAA's exceptions apply, and if not, Ryan's claim would automatically be dismissed. The court concluded that since the civil action at issue resulted from Milot's possession of the Glock pistol, which constituted “criminal or unlawful misuse” due to Milot's felony conviction, the action was a “qualified civil liability action” and did not fit within any of PLCAA's exceptions. Therefore, the matter was summarily dismissed. (MS)
