Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.
651 N.E.2d 239 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discharge of firearms is not an ultrahazardous (or abnormally dangerous) activity that subjects a person to strict liability for resulting harm; rather, such incidents are governed by principles of negligence.
Facts:
- The City of Freeport and/or Civil Constructors, Inc. were responsible for or controlled a gravel pit.
- Law enforcement officers conducted firearm target practice within this gravel pit.
- During the target practice, a bullet was discharged from a firearm.
- The bullet ricocheted, became a stray, and traveled outside the target area.
- Gerald Miller, who was nearby, was struck by the stray bullet.
- As a result of being hit by the bullet, Miller fell from a truck and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Miller (plaintiff) filed a complaint in the circuit court of Stephenson County against Civil Constructors, Inc. and the City of Freeport (defendants).
- Counts I and V of the complaint alleged that the defendants were strictly liable for Miller's injuries because discharging firearms is an 'ultrahazardous activity.'
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability counts for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the strict liability counts.
- Miller (appellant) appealed the dismissal of the strict liability counts to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Civil Constructors and the City of Freeport as appellees.
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 the discharge of firearms during target practice in a gravel pit constitute an ultrahazardous activity that would subject the responsible parties to strict liability for resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bowman
No. The discharge of firearms is not an ultrahazardous activity that gives rise to strict liability. To determine whether an activity is ultrahazardous, the court adopts the six-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520. Applying these factors, the court reasoned that while firearm use can be dangerous, the risk of harm can be virtually eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. Unlike activities like blasting, for which no amount of care can guarantee safety, firearm safety depends on the user's conduct. Furthermore, the court found that the use of firearms is a matter of common usage, the target practice occurred in an appropriate location (a quarry), and the activity has social utility, especially when conducted by law enforcement officers for training. Therefore, the proper legal framework for analyzing injuries from firearms is negligence, which requires the plaintiff to prove a lack of due care, not strict liability.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 six-factor test in Illinois for determining whether an activity is ultrahazardous, providing a clear analytical framework for future cases. By explicitly rejecting the application of strict liability to the discharge of firearms, the court reinforced the traditional negligence standard for such cases. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover for firearm-related injuries, as they must prove a breach of the standard of care rather than simply showing that the activity caused the harm. The ruling solidifies the distinction between activities that are inherently and uncontrollably dangerous (like blasting) and those whose danger can be mitigated by exercising a high degree of care.
