## Facts

- A 13-year-old boy, home alone, retrieved his father’s Beretta 92FS service handgun from an unlocked box stored on a closet shelf in the parents’ bedroom.
- The father was a Cook County correctional officer employed by the sheriff’s department.
- The boy removed the magazine and believed the handgun was unloaded; he then pointed the gun at a friend and pulled the trigger.
- A round in the chamber fired despite the magazine being removed, killing the friend.
- The decedent’s estate sued (1) the sheriff in his official capacity for negligent training/supervision and inadequate policies concerning officers’ home storage of service weapons, and (2) the manufacturer for design defect and failure to warn.
- The design theories alleged the handgun was unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a magazine-disconnect safety and had an allegedly inadequate chamber-loaded indicator.
- The warning theory alleged consumers commonly misunderstand that removing a magazine means the gun cannot fire, and the manufacturer should have specifically warned that the gun can fire with the magazine removed.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for both defendants; the appellate court reversed in part and remanded; the Illinois Supreme Court allowed consolidated review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) barred the design-defect and failure-to-warn claims against the handgun manufacturer, and whether any statutory exception applied.
2. If not barred, whether the evidence created a triable issue that the handgun was unreasonably dangerous due to design choices or inadequate warnings.
3. Whether the sheriff, sued in an official capacity, owed a duty to protect members of the public from injuries caused by an off-duty officer’s alleged failure to secure a service weapon in the officer’s home.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s partial reversal and affirmed summary judgment for both defendants.
- The court held the claims against the manufacturer were barred by the PLCAA as a prohibited “qualified civil liability action,” and no exception applied.
- The court also concluded that, under Illinois products-liability principles, the handgun’s ability to fire a chambered round with the magazine removed did not render it unreasonably dangerous, and the manufacturer had no duty to provide the demanded warning.
- The court held the sheriff owed no actionable duty regarding training, supervision, or policy enforcement for off-duty, in-home storage of an officer’s service weapon under the circumstances presented.

## Legal Principles

- PLCAA preempts state-law suits seeking damages from firearms manufacturers for harm resulting from third-party criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm when the action falls within the statute’s definition of a “qualified civil liability action” and no statutory exception applies.
- A product is not defective merely because other designs include additional safety mechanisms; Illinois law does not require adoption of every conceivable safety feature where the product performs as intended.
- Manufacturers generally have no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious; for firearms, the risk of discharge and resulting injury is ordinarily treated as an obvious danger.
- In Illinois negligence law, duty depends on factors including foreseeability, likelihood of injury, burden of guarding against injury, and consequences of placing that burden on the defendant; an attenuated relationship and substantial enforcement burdens can negate duty.
- A public official sued in an official capacity is not liable absent an actionable duty under state tort principles for the type of harm alleged.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the sheriff and the handgun manufacturer, holding that PLCAA barred the product claims and that Illinois law imposed no duty on the sheriff to prevent the shooting through training or home-storage policy enforcement for an off-duty officer’s service weapon.


Adames v. Sheahan, 909 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. 2009)