Adames v. Sheahan

Thirteen-year-old Billy Swan found a Beretta handgun in his parents’ closet and played around with it. Based on what he saw, Billy believed that if he removed the magazine, no bullets would be left in the gun. Billy showed the gun to Josh Adames and another friend. With the magazine out, Billy jokingly pointed the gun at Adames and pulled the trigger. The gun fired, killing Adames. In juvenile court, Billy was adjudicated delinquent for the shooting and given probation. Adames’s estate (plaintiff) brought products-liability claims against Beretta U.S.A. Corporation (Beretta) (defendant) based on design-defect and failure-to-warn theories. The design-defect claim alleged that the gun lacked reasonably priced safety features that were available on other models. Most notably, the handgun (1) lacked a part that would prevent the gun from firing without the magazine and (2) used a chamber-loaded indicator, i.e., a signal that a bullet was in the chamber, that was difficult to see and understand. The failure-to-warn claim alleged that Beretta had not adequately warned users that the handgun could be fired without a magazine. The estate presented evidence that approximately 35 percent of the population did not know that some handguns could be fired with the magazines removed. According to the estate, this evidence meant that the danger was not obvious and required a specific warning. Beretta moved for summary judgment on the claims, arguing that (1) the handgun was not unreasonably dangerous or defectively designed and (2) the claims were preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The district court granted judgment to Beretta on all the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the design-defect claims but ruled that the duty-to-warn claim could proceed. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.