Merrill v. Navegar

The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion.

On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed eight people and wounded six– and then killed himself– during a shooting rampage at 101 California Street, a high-rise office building in San Francisco. Survivors and representatives of some of Ferri’s victims (plaintiffs) sued defendant Navegar, Inc. (Navegar), which made two of the three weapons Ferri used. We granted review to determine whether plaintiffs may hold Navegar liable on a common law negligence theory. We hold they may not, because the Legislature has declared as a matter of public policy that a gun manufacturer may not be held liable “[i]n a products liability action . . . on the basis that the benefits of [its] product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by [the product's] potential to cause serious injury, damage, or death when discharged.” (Civ. Code, � 1714.4, subd. (a).)[FOOTNOTE 1] That, in essence, is plaintiffs’ theory of recovery here: that Navegar defectively designed the weapons Ferris used because, given their particular characteristics, the benefits of making them available to the general public– which were nonexistent– did not outweigh the risk they might inflict serious injury or death when discharged. The public policy the Legislature established in section 1714.4 precludes plaintiffs from proceeding on this theory. We therefore conclude the trial court correctly granted Navegar summary judgment, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s decision.