Edwards v. Johnson
269 N.C. 30, 152 S.E.2d 122, 25 A.L.R. 3d 502 (1967)
Rule of Law:
A person handling a loaded firearm is held to the highest degree of care and must use the utmost caution to prevent injury to others, commensurate with the dangerousness of the weapon.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, an insurance agent, handled all insurance matters for the defendant and her husband, often conducting business at their home at night.
- Plaintiff customarily came to the back door, and the defendant had previously told him it was not necessary to telephone before coming over.
- On the morning of the incident, the defendant had telephoned the plaintiff about an insurance problem, and he had agreed to stop by when he was in the vicinity.
- Plaintiff knew the defendant's husband was away and that she was uneasy when alone in the house, for which reason she kept a shotgun for protection.
- Around 9:30 p.m. that night, the plaintiff went to the defendant’s home and knocked on the kitchen door without first telephoning.
- Upon hearing the knock, the defendant loaded and cocked her shotgun.
- The defendant came to the door carrying the loaded and cocked shotgun, turned on the porch light, and as she was pushing back the curtain to see who was there, the barrel of the gun hit the door.
- The impact caused the gun to discharge, seriously and permanently injuring the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a civil action against the defendant in a trial court, alleging his injuries were caused by the defendant's negligence.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence during the trial, the defendant made a motion for a judgment of nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion and entered a judgment dismissing the action.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
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 homeowner who accidentally discharges a loaded shotgun and injures a business associate breach the duty of care by failing to exercise the highest degree of caution when investigating an unannounced knock at her back door late at night?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
Yes. A person handling a loaded firearm is held to the highest degree of care, and the defendant's actions did not meet this standard. The court reasoned that the right to defend one's home does not apply to an accidental discharge, and even if it did, the defendant would not have been justified in shooting intentionally because the plaintiff had made no threat or attempt at forcible entry. Instead of immediately arming herself, the defendant could have made a simple inquiry, such as 'Who's there?', which would have averted the tragedy. Given their business relationship, her phone call to him that day, and his custom of visiting at night, the defendant might reasonably have anticipated the plaintiff's arrival. The very fact that the gun discharged while in her sole control, without any intervening force or defect, is sufficient evidence of negligence to be decided by a jury.
Dissenting - Lake, J.
No. The defendant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The dissent argues that a woman alone at night with small children, in a neighborhood known for prowlers, is not negligent for carrying a loaded and cocked gun to her door to investigate an unexpected, unidentified knock. The fear she experienced was a reasonable reaction to an emergency situation, and she should not be held to the standard of care required of someone in a calm environment. Furthermore, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent because he knowingly created a dangerous situation by approaching the back door of a darkened house late at night without warning, fully aware that the defendant was alone, uneasy, and kept a shotgun for protection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that handling firearms requires the highest degree of care, creating a very high bar for defendants in accidental shooting cases. It establishes that a homeowner's fear, while a relevant circumstance, does not negate this high duty of care, especially before any actual threat materializes. The ruling suggests that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply to firearm accidents, allowing an inference of negligence from the mere fact that a gun discharged while under a person's exclusive control. This precedent significantly strengthens the position of plaintiffs in negligence suits involving firearms by emphasizing the handler's near-absolute responsibility for the weapon's safe operation.
