Burleson v. RSR Group Florida, Inc.
981 So.2d 1109 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, a plaintiff's claim is barred by contributory negligence as a matter of law when the evidence shows the plaintiff engaged in a self-evidently dangerous act and, based on their experience and knowledge, should have consciously appreciated the danger, even without direct evidence of their subjective awareness at the moment of injury.
Facts:
- On April 26, 1985, Stanley Duane Burleson purchased a Herbert Schmidt model 21S, .22 caliber, single-action revolver.
- The revolver was equipped with a manual safety that, when engaged, prevents the firearm from discharging.
- The owner's manual recommended loading the six-chamber revolver with only five cartridges, leaving the chamber aligned with the hammer empty for safety.
- Burleson was described by his family as 'safety conscious,' having a personal 'rule' to store firearms in his house unloaded and having taught his son the importance of never keeping a live round chambered in line with the hammer.
- On April 2, 2000, Burleson was at home hanging the revolver, which was in its holster, on a gun rack.
- The revolver fell from the holster, struck a desk, and discharged.
- The bullet struck Burleson in the abdomen, causing a fatal wound.
- An investigation after the incident revealed that at the time it fell, the revolver's manual safety was disengaged and a live cartridge was in the chamber aligned with the hammer and firing pin.
Procedural Posture:
- The co-administrators of Stanley Duane Burleson's estate sued RSR Group Florida, Inc., and others in an Alabama trial court under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.
- RSR Group Florida, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Burleson was contributorily negligent.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RSR Group Florida, Inc.
- The trial court certified its order as a final judgment, allowing for an immediate appeal.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a gun owner's handling of a firearm with the manual safety disengaged and a live round chambered in line with the hammer constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law, thereby barring recovery under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bolin
Yes, handling a firearm with the manual safety disengaged and a live round chambered constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring recovery. To establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, a defendant must show that the plaintiff put himself in danger's way and had a conscious appreciation of that danger. Here, Burleson put himself in danger by handling the revolver with the safety off and a cartridge chambered under the hammer. Citing Serio v. Merrell, Inc., the court reasoned that direct evidence of a plaintiff's conscious appreciation of danger is not required if they understood or 'should have understood' the danger. The court concluded that the danger of handling a firearm in this condition is self-evident, especially to an experienced and safety-conscious gun owner like Burleson, and therefore, he should have consciously appreciated the risk. As his contributory negligence was established as a matter of law, his estate's claim is barred.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Cobb
No, a gun owner's actions do not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the owner's subjective appreciation of the danger. The dissent argued that establishing contributory negligence as a matter of law requires a subjective standard, meaning proof that the plaintiff actually knew of and appreciated the specific danger. There was no evidence that Burleson knew a cartridge was under the hammer or that the safety was disengaged. In fact, his well-established safety habits support an inference that he believed the firearm was in a safe condition. The majority improperly applied an objective 'should have known' standard from a different type of negligence case, contrary to established precedent in product liability cases. Therefore, the question of contributory negligence should have been decided by a jury, not by the court on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and arguably expands the contributory negligence defense in Alabama product liability cases at the summary judgment stage. By holding that a plaintiff's 'conscious appreciation of danger' can be established if they 'should have understood' the risk, the court moves closer to an objective standard. This makes it easier for defendants to defeat product defect claims by focusing on the user's conduct, potentially preventing cases with experienced users from reaching a jury. The dissent highlights the doctrinal tension this creates, as prior case law emphasized a stricter, subjective standard requiring actual awareness of the risk.
