Newsletters

Liability of Ammunition Manufacturers

Liability of Ammunition Manufacturers

Gun manufacturers have been faced with product liability suits claiming that they should be held strictly liable for producing certain guns, even if they worked exactly as intended, because the guns constituted defective, "unreasonably dangerous" products. What about the manufacturers of ammunition? Gun violence would not be possible without ammunition. Can ammunition manufacturers be held liable for producing unreasonably dangerous products?

Product liability claims against ammunition manufacturers can be based on several theories: that the ammunition was defective because of a mistake in manufacturing; that the ammunition was defective because of a design defect; that the ammunition was defective because it failed to include proper warnings to consumers; or that the manufacture of the ammunition was an ultrahazardous activity. While ammunition manufacturers have thus far prevailed in these suits, the potential for liability exists. With the advent of more deadly and more dangerous types of ammunition, ammunition manufacturers may no longer be able to successfully defend their products.

In one action against an ammunition manufacturer stemming from a shooting spree on a commuter train, the court rejected the plaintiffs' assertions that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for their injuries because the manufacturer's ammunition was defectively designed and the design and manufacture of the bullets was an ultrahazardous activity. The ammunition in question incorporated a hollow-point bullet that was designed to expand upon impact, exposing razor-sharp edges at a 90-degree angle to the bullet. The design of the ammunition dramatically increased the wounding power of the bullets. Ruling in favor of the manufacturer, the court determined that the ammunition was not defectively designed. Instead, the court ruled that the expanding design of the ammunition was a functional element of the design. The court ruled that the ammunition was an inherently dangerous product that was designed to cause injuries. The court reasoned that to hold the manufacturer named in the suit strictly liable for injuries from the ammunition would improperly expose all ammunition manufacturers to similar liability.

In response to the potential liability ammunition manufacturers could face, some states have passed laws limiting the liability of ammunition manufacturers in product liability actions. For example, South Carolina law provides that, in a products liability action involving ammunition, whether an ammunition shell is defective in design cannot be based on a comparison or weighing of the benefits of the product against the risk of injury, damage, or death posed by its potential to cause that injury, damage, or death when discharged. In addition, South Carolina law requires that the plaintiff bringing such a cause of action has the burden of proving the following: 1) that the actual design of the ammunition was defective, causing it not to function in a manner reasonably expected by an ordinary consumer of firearms or ammunition; and 2) that the defective design was the proximate cause of the injury, damage, or death. Several other states have passed similar legislation.

Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.