Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Bloyd
| Decision Date | 03 July 1979 |
| Citation | 586 S.W.2d 19 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC., Movant, v. Karol BLOYD and Gordon Price, Respondents. |
Uhel Barrickman, Richardson, Barrickman & Dickinson, Glasgow, for movant.
Bill Colvin, Greensburg, Donald F. Mintmire, Hensley, Craddock, Talley & Dunn, Horse Cave, for respondent Bloyd.
Robert M. Spragens, Jr., Lebanon, for respondent Price.
This is a products liability action. Karol Bloyd was hit in the ankle by a bullet which fired from a revolver when it was accidentally dropped on a concrete floor. It presents a claim for an alleged defective design in a safety catch. The respondent, Karol Bloyd, filed suit against Gordon Price, the owner of the gun, and Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., the manufacturer of the gun. A jury awarded Bloyd $50,000 against Sturm, Ruger & Company and $2,796 against Price for negligence in the use of the gun. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. This Court granted discretionary review and reverses.
A detailed statement of the facts is deemed necessary. First of all, Price, while a member of the United Stated Armed Forces and stationed in Berlin, Germany, purchased in 1973 the single-action .357-magnum Blackhawk revolver. It is an improvement over other single-action handguns and is a 1972 design and issue. Its safety device has three positions: (1) When the hammer is placed all the way down in what is called a safety notch, the gun is not supposed to fire; (2) There is a half-cocked position which is used for loading; and (3) In a full-cocked position the gun is ready for firing. Ordinarily, to fire this weapon the hammer must be pulled all the way back. The safety-notch position is not considered safe because a sharp blow on it will cause a very thin piece of steel to rupture, thereby letting the hammer go forward and igniting the cartridge. A clandestine safety lock is to let the hammer down middleways between two firing chambers. This causes the hammer to lock; however, the cylinder containing the bullets can easily rotate and when it does the gun will fire. The only sure safety of the revolver is to let the hammer rest on an empty chamber, thereby having five bullets in the chambers instead of six.
The first successful single-action revolver came out about 1847 and continued into the mid 1940's. During the 1950's movant (Ruger) started making this type of gun. It had substantially the same safety features as the earlier 1873 model single-action Colt revolver. It was emblematic of the western guns and was highly successful on the market. With the hammer on safety, other than on an empty chamber, the gun would fire if dropped from a height of eight to fifteen inches. There were four types of safety mechanisms that could have been incorporated into the subject weapon at a nominal cost for each. The gun then would have offered greater safety. Each of the safety designs would require some minor modification of the weapon. However, if modified and if dropped from a height of twelve inches and landing on the hammer, the gun was not likely to fire. When the gun was sold new, it was accompanied by a small pamphlet warning of the gun's unsafe safety mechanism and advising that if the gun was to be carried, the hammer should be on a chamber in which there was no bullet. The warning and notice, in words and figures, are as follows:
"SAFETY NOTE
If these revolvers are to be carried loaded, certain precautions Must be observed in the interest of safety. (These precautions also apply to the older types of single action revolvers.)
Load only five chambers, placing the empty chamber in alignment with the firing pin and the hammer either in the safety notch or resting on the firing pin.
Do not carry one of these revolvers with a cartridge in line with the firing pin. Neither the safety nor the loading notch can be depended upon in case of a heavy blow on the hammer or the trigger. NEVER permit the hammer to rest on the firing pin with a loaded cartridge in line with the barrel. Under such circumstances, the firing pin will be in direct contact with the primer of the loaded cartridge and a light accidental blow on the hammer can readily cause the gun to discharge.
WARNING: This revolver can be fired by excessive pull on the trigger from either the safety notch position, indicated by No. 2 in Figure 1, or the loading notch position indicated by No. 3 in Figure 1.
The loading notch and the safety notch provide only partial security. If these notches are damaged, as they may be by 'fanning', they offer no security. Never depend on this or any other mechanical safety device to justify pointing the firearm at any person.
Fanning is unsafe for you and abusive to your revolver."
This was the only notice of the unsafe condition of the safety mechanism. The gun was advertised as a six-shooter. The unsafe feature of the weapon was retained at the expense of its pleasant appearance and nominal cost of modification. There were no similar guns manufactured in the United States that had different types of safety mechanisms. In 1973 the design of the safety mechanism was changed so that in the event the weapon did fall to a concrete floor it was not likely to discharge. Consequently, the new design was safer than the design of the subject gun.
Ruger cites four alleged errors:
1. Was the gun reasonably safe considering the directions and warnings furnished with it?
2. Was the gun so inherently dangerous as to make the manufacturer an insurer even if the product was perfectly safe if used according to directions?
3. Was the owner's negligence in misusing the gun reasonably foreseeable despite clear warnings and was, therefore, the owner's negligence the sole and proximate cause of the accident?
4. Should the court have defined "foreseeably probable" for the jury and instructed that the owner of the gun had a duty to exercise the highest degree of care?
In products-liability actions we are confronted with liability (1) by reason of the product being defective in its manufacture and (2) where the product is not defective but may be dangerous for the ordinary user unless he is notified. In the present case we are confronted with the latter. By their very nature firearms are dangerous, but do not kill people. It is the action of people in their use of firearms that kill or injure people. The criteria of liability by which the duty of a manufacturer is measured are whether it knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care ought to have known, that the equipment was limited in its safety design and that it should foresee a substantial likelihood that a user, exercising ordinary care for his own safety, might be injured by it. If so, the manufacturer is under a duty either to use reasonable care to remedy the design before selling it so that it is reasonably safe for its intended use and other uses which are reasonably foreseeable or to provide such warning as would be reasonably sufficient to bring the danger to an expectable user's attention and be understood by him.
It can hardly be contended that the warning and notice which accompanied the sale of the revolver did not clearly and succinctly advise of the shortcomings of the safety mechanism. The subject revolver displayed no physical attributes of being unsafe if and when used in the manner and method suggested by the manufacturer. Ruger, the manufacturer, is not a guarantor of the safety of the revolver. The evidence discloses that the subject revolver was not unsafe when used in the normal and usual manner. The use to which we find the gun being put is contrary to the instructions. Gordon Price, the owner of the gun, Read the warning and knew that the gun was not to be used in such a manner. No one would contend that the gun was misused had the hammer been put down on the empty chamber, as directed by the instructions.
Although a gun is inherently dangerous, it does not necessarily follow that a manufacturer is liable in damages to each person injured or killed by the use of the weapon. There is nothing in the record to disclose that the subject revolver was any more dangerous than any other single-action revolver. In Jones v. Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc., Ky., 502 S.W.2d 66 (1973), we were confronted with an alleged defective design, and the question turned on what is reasonable care and what is reasonable safety? The maker is not required to design the best possible product or one as good as others make or a better product than the one he has, so long as it is reasonably safe. A gun,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
...It was adapted from the 1873 Colt single-action revolver, and has been termed "emblematic of the western guns". Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Bloyd, 586 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Ky.1979). The hammer on this model has four notches (clicks): full down (hammer resting against firing pin), safety notch, lo......
-
Queen v. Hunter's Mfg. Co.
...dangerous, so too should the lighter here be held not to be unreasonably dangerous." Id. at *4. Finally, in Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Bloyd, 586 S.W.2d 19 (Ky. 1979), where a worker cleaning a gun owner's car was injured when a revolver the owner placed under the floor mat discharged, the court......
-
A. Uberti and C. v. Leonardo
...accidental firing made the Cattleman both defective and unreasonably dangerous. See also Bender, 517 S.W.2d at 706; Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Bloyd, 586 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Ky.1979). The gun in this case was fully loaded when Henry put it under the car seat. Defendant attempted to correct the danger......
-
Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:08–CV–00019–JHM.
...product or one as good as others make or a better product than the one he has, so long as it is reasonably safe.” Sturm, Ruger & Co. v. Bloyd, 586 S.W.2d 19, 21–22 (Ky.1979). Thus, in a product liability case such as this, “the question is whether the product creates such a risk of an accid......