Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 3D00-113.,3D00-113. |
Citation | 778 So.2d 1042 |
Parties | Alexander PENELAS, and Miami-Dade County, Appellants, v. ARMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Javier Alberto Soto, Assistant County Attorneys; and Dennis A. Henigan, Washington, DC, for appellants.
Hardeman & Suarez, Miami; Friday, Eldredge & Clark and William M. Griffin, III, Little Rock, AR; Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and James M. Kaplan and Sara J. Sanders; Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and David A. Friedman; Bilzin Sumberg Dunn Price & Axelrod and J. Ronald Denman; Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Thomas M. Sherouse; Angones, Hunter, McClure; Kenny Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, Miami; Gary R. Long and Jeffrey S. Nelson, Kansas City, MO; Paul T. Reid, Wendy Lumish and Carlton Fields, Miami, for appellees.
Lawrence S. Greenwald, Baltimore, MD, for Beretta U.S. Corp. and Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Berretta as pro hac vice.
James P. Dorr, Chicago, IL, for Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., as pro hac vice.
Melissa Anne Maye, Yorkville, IL, for B.L. Jennings, Inc. and Bryco Arms, Inc. as pro hac vice.
Before GERSTEN, GREEN,1 and FLETCHER, JJ.
Miami-Dade County and its Mayor, Alexander Penelas, [together "County"], filed a complaint against twenty-six federally licensed firearms manufacturers, three firearms trade associations, and two firearms retail dealers, alleging various theories, including negligence, strict liability for defective products, public nuisance, and ultra hazardous activity, in an effort to recover the County's costs of responding to firearms incidents. The County's complaint also seeks injunctive relief requiring manufacturers to implement life-saving features into their products, and to alter the method of firearm distribution and sale so as to better keep firearms out of criminal circulation. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the County's action with prejudice.
We have been referred to and examined numerous appellate decisions of other jurisdictions. It appears that all of the appellate decisions but one2 preclude relief similar to that requested here by the County. However, we do not need to look much, if at all, beyond Florida appellate decisions. In Trespalacios v. Valor Corp. of Fla., 486 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a madman shot and killed eight individuals with a "riot and combat" shotgun. Trespalacios, as personal representative of the estate of one of the victims, brought suit against the seller of the weapon, the distributor, and the manufacturer, on theories of negligence and strict product liability. In affirming the trial court's dismissal as to the distributor and the manufacturer, this court stated:
486 So.2d at 650 (citations omitted).
As to the contention that the appellees or some of them are engaged in an ultra hazardous activity for which they should be held liable, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded in Coulson v. DeAngelo, 493 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986):
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Shipman v. Jennings Firearms, Inc., 791 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1986), also dealing with the issue of ultra hazardous activity, cited and applied Florida case law3 dealing with the doctrine. The federal court observed that under this doctrine Florida imposes liability for damages resulting solely from activities which occur on land and which pose an unusual and unnecessarily high risk of harm to neighboring landowners and their property. Involved was a "Saturday Night Special"4 used by the shooter. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer/distributor, concluding that Florida state courts rejected or would reject the novel theory of "Saturday Night Special" hazardous activity as proposed by Shipman.
K-Mart Enter. of Fla., Inc. v. Keller, 439 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) is not relevant to our inquiry as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mortg. Securities
...gun industry); see also Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. City of Atlanta, 253 Ga. App. 713, 560 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2002); Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc., 778 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Fla.Ct.App.2001). The City's citations to a definition contained in another (wholly irrelevant) section of the Ohio Revised Code (§......
-
W. Boca Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)
...at 9 (citing Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc. , No. 99-1941 CA-06, 1999 WL 1204353, at *4 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 13, 1999), aff'd, 778 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) ). Even if the Court found this Florida trial court decision persuasive (much less precedential), the case still does not req......
-
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 00 CV 3641.
...Inc., 258 Mich.App. 48, 669 N.W.2d 845 (2003); James v. Arms Tech., Inc., 359 N.J.Super. 291, 820 A.2d 27 (2003); Penelas v. Arms Tech. Inc., 778 So.2d 1042 (Fla.Ct.App.2001), review denied, 799 So.2d 218 (Fla.2001); Baker v. Smith & Wesson, No. Civ. A. 99C-09-283-FS, 2002 WL 31741522 (Del.......
-
City of Miami v. Bank of Am. Corp.
...... See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 ... See Penelas v. Arms Tech., Inc., No. 99–1941 CA–06, 1999 WL 1204353, at *2 ......