McCarthy v. Olin Corporation
119 F.3d 148 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a manufacturer of a product that performs as designed is not liable under theories of strict products liability or negligence for injuries caused by a third party's criminal misuse of that product, as the manufacturer owes no legal duty to protect potential victims from such misuse.
Facts:
- Olin Corporation, through its Winchester division, designed and manufactured 'Black Talon' hollowpoint bullets.
- The bullets were designed to expand on impact into six ninety-degree angle, razor-sharp petals to enhance wounding power by tearing tissue and bone.
- Although originally developed for law enforcement, Olin marketed and sold the Black Talon ammunition to the general public starting in 1992.
- Colin Ferguson, a member of the general public, purchased the Black Talon ammunition before Olin withdrew it from the public market in November 1993 following public outcry.
- On December 7, 1993, Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Railroad train and shot passengers using a handgun loaded with Black Talon bullets.
- Dennis McCarthy was killed, and Kevin McCarthy and Maryanne Phillips were severely wounded.
- The victims' injuries were enhanced by the ripping and tearing action of the Black Talon bullets, which performed exactly as designed by the manufacturer.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Olin Corporation in New York State Supreme Court, alleging negligence and strict products liability.
- Olin Corporation removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on diversity of citizenship.
- Olin Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York law, is a manufacturer of non-defective, specially designed ammunition liable in strict products liability or negligence for injuries resulting from a third party's criminal misuse of that ammunition?
Opinions:
Majority - Meskill, J.
No. Under New York law, a manufacturer of ammunition that performs as designed is not liable for injuries resulting from the product's criminal misuse. A strict products liability claim for design defect fails because the plaintiffs did not allege a product defect; the bullets functioned precisely as intended, and their dangerousness is inherent to their purpose, not a flaw in their condition. The risk/utility test is inapplicable because it is used to evaluate alternative designs for defective products, not to judge the social utility of a non-defective product's intended function. A negligence claim fails because Olin owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs to protect them from the criminal acts of a third party. New York common law does not impose a duty on a manufacturer to control the distribution of its lawful products or to prevent their criminal misuse by others.
Dissenting - Calabresi, J.
The court should not answer this question but should instead certify the complex and unsettled questions of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals. A federal court's refusal to certify novel state-law issues of significant public policy undermines federalism, encourages forum-shopping, and risks creating incorrect precedent that unjustly deprives litigants of their state-law rights. The existence of a legal duty under negligence and the proper test for a design defect under strict liability are policy-laden questions that New York's highest court has reserved for itself and has not definitively answered in a case like this. By predicting the outcome, the majority is making policy for the State of New York, a role properly left to that state's own highest court.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional tort law principle that manufacturers are generally not liable for the criminal misuse of their non-defective products. It establishes a strong barrier for plaintiffs seeking to hold manufacturers of firearms or ammunition liable for gun violence under product liability theories. The court's refusal to apply a risk/utility analysis to a product's intended function, rather than a defect, significantly narrows the scope of strict liability for inherently dangerous products. This case highlights judicial reluctance to expand tort liability into areas seen as the province of the legislature, particularly concerning the regulation of lawful but dangerous items.
Unlock the full brief for McCarthy v. Olin Corporation