Negligence Claim Gun Dealer Duty Foreseeability of Harm
Hall v. Myerson et al, PICS Case No. 17-1149 (C.P. Philadelphia May 25, 2017) Massiah-Jackson, J. (29 pages).
Plaintiff, who claimed he was wrongfully convicted of committing murder with a gun purchased from defendant's store, could not maintain a negligence action against defendant since the defendant gun dealer owed no duty of care to plaintiff. The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Lou's Loan of Upper Darby, Inc. was a federally licensed gun dealer until sometime in July 2006. Stanton Myerson owned Lou's. On July 10, 1996, Lou's sold Elwood Quillen a .38 caliber handgun and a specific sawed-off pump shotgun. Quillen was barred from purchasing guns due to a prior criminal history. He used false identification and a false address to buy the two guns. In February 1997, Joseph Dukuly was murdered with the .38 caliber gun sold by Lou's in July 1996. In March 997, Edward Williams was murdered with the specific sawed-off shotgun also sold by Lou's in July 1996. Quillen was arrested for and convicted of Dukuly's murder. Plaintiff Robert Hall was arrested for and convicted of Williams' murder. In 2016, Hall filed this civil lawsuit against Lou's owner Myerson. He maintained that he was wrongfully convicted of homicide and sought to assert a negligence claim against Myerson. The court considered whether Hall could establish a cause of action for negligence against Myerson. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recognized that the legal concept of duty of care involves considerations of "amorphous public policy" and identified five factors to be weighed in determining whether a duty exists, the court explained. These factors, set forth in Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2000), include: the relationship between the parties; the social utility of the conduct; the nature of the risk; the consequences of imposing a duty; and the public interest. In this matter, the parties were strangers and there was no social utility in making Myerson responsible for the actions or inactions of Hall, who did not purchase a gun from Lou's. Moreover, while the risk of harm was great, it was not foreseeable that a person such as Hall would be "wrongfully convicted." The court also noted that the burden on Myerson would be unreasonable and that, while there was a public interest in reducing gun violence, the proposed solution, i.e., liability on the gun seller under the circumstances of this case, would not achieve the goal of reducing gun violence. As such, the court found that Myerson did not owe a duty of care to Hall. The court also rejected Hall's claim that he was a "foreseeable victim" of the gun sale to Quillen. Even assuming Lou's negligently or illegally sold weapons to Quillen or to another male in 1996 and even if it should have been foreseen that the purchasers would use the weapons for harm in 1997, nothing would put Lou's on notice that Hall would be arrested, "wrongfully convicted" and sentenced to life in prison. As such, the court found that plaintiff could not maintain this negligence action against Myerson.