Issue: The main issue in Bernethy v. Walt Failor’s, Inc. is whether the defendants (owners of a gun shop) owed a duty of care to the decedent, Phoebe Fleming, and whether they breached that duty by negligently furnishing a firearm to an intoxicated person, Robert Fleming, who later used the firearm to commit a fatal act.
Rule: A cause of action for negligence requires the plaintiff to establish three key elements:
- The existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- A breach of that duty by the defendant.
- A causal connection between the breach and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, known as proximate cause.
In Washington, duty may be derived from both statutory law and common law principles of negligence. Specifically, the court referred to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, which establishes that a person who supplies a chattel (in this case, a firearm) to someone they know or have reason to know is likely to use it in a way that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others can be held liable for any resulting injuries.
Application:
- Duty of Care:
- The court evaluated whether the defendants owed a duty of care under common law and found that a duty existed based on public policy considerations. This duty is rooted in the principle that one should not furnish a dangerous instrumentality, such as a firearm, to an individual who is incompetent to use it safely due to intoxication. This duty aligns with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, which the court adopted.
- The court also considered the applicability of RCW 9.41.080, which prohibits delivering a pistol to certain individuals, such as habitual drunkards. While this statute specifically addresses pistols, the underlying public policy against furnishing firearms to those unfit to use them safely was relevant to the case.
- Breach of Duty:
- The court determined that reasonable minds could differ on whether the defendants breached their duty by providing a gun to Robert Fleming. Although Fleming ultimately stole the gun, the court emphasized that the transaction was nearly complete, and the firearm, along with ammunition, was within Fleming’s reach. The court held that it was a question for the jury to decide whether the defendants breached their duty by furnishing the firearm to Fleming in his intoxicated state.
- Proximate Cause:
- The court found that proximate cause should be determined by the jury, as the facts were disputed and open to varying inferences. The key question was whether the defendants’ actions in supplying the firearm were the natural and continuous cause of Phoebe Fleming’s death, unbroken by any independent intervening cause.
Conclusion: The Washington Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants. The case was remanded for trial, allowing the jury to decide whether the defendants breached their duty of care and whether their actions were the proximate cause of Phoebe Fleming’s death.
Link to the case:
Review our client resources here
Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.
About Blanford Law:
We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions. If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com