April 29, 2025 – In a case where Renzulli Law Firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the Kansas Supreme Court recently issued an opinion overturning the intermediate appellate court and dismissing all claims brought against Beretta and Bass Pro Shops.
In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, et al., plaintiff claimed that he was injured due an alleged design defect in a Beretta pistol or a failure to warn about a design feature of the pistol. The basic facts were not in dispute. While driving and after coming to a red light, the pistol’s owner decided to prove how quickly he could disassemble the pistol. He believed that the pistol would not discharge with the magazine removed and that the trigger had to be pulled to remove the slide. He was wrong on both counts; and these issues were clearly addressed in the pistol’s owner’s manual. The owner did not check to see if a round remained in the chamber after removing the magazine, and when he pulled the trigger with the pistol pointed at plaintiff, it discharged, with the bullet striking plaintiff’s leg, resulting in its amputation.
In Kansas, discharging a firearm on a public roadway is a crime, and like speeding, it is a strict liability crime – meaning one does not need to know they are breaking the law to be guilty. Beretta and Bass Pro Shops filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit based on the federal immunity law – the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). While the PLCAA includes an exception for traditional products liability cases, this “exception” includes an “exception to the exception” prohibiting products liability cases when the injury is caused “by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense.” Here, the owner intentionally pulled the trigger and the discharge was a criminal offense because he was on a public roadway at the time.
Plaintiff’s counsel, and the anti-gun groups Brady United and Everytown Law, argued that the PLCAA’s product liability “exception to the exception” only applies when the person handling the firearm “intends” to discharge the firearm, and does not include “accidental” discharges. The defendants and NSSF pointed out that the clear language of the statute did not include any such “mental awareness” to the “volitional act” element. While the intermediate appellate court adopted plaintiff’s rationale when it overturned the trial court’s dismissal, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed with defendants and NSSF and dismissed all claims against Beretta and Bass Pro Shops. The Kansas Supreme Court held, “the PLCAA bars a product-liability action if: 1) a voluntary act caused the gun to fire, even if the person did not intend to discharge the weapon; and (2) the shooting, considering both the voluntary act and discharge, constitutes a criminal offense.”
This case is an important victory for the firearm industry to help stop anti-gun groups and their lawyers from whittling away at the protections a bi-partisan Congress provided to firearms manufacturers and sellers in 2005 to stop abusive lawsuits not founded on traditional and long-standing common law theories of liability.
If you have any questions about the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision, or the defense of cases against the firearms industry pursuant to the PLCAA, please contact John Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.