## Facts

- The decedent, Stanley Duane Burleson, purchased a Herbert Schmidt .22 caliber single-action revolver in 1985 from a retail dealer after it had been imported and distributed through the chain of commerce, including RSR Group Florida, Inc. (a distributor).
- The revolver held six cartridges and required manual cocking of the hammer before firing.
- The revolver had a manual safety that, when engaged, blocked the hammer from striking the firing pin.
- Evidence indicated the revolver could discharge if the safety was disengaged, a live round was chambered in line with the hammer and firing pin, and force was applied to the hammer.
- Stanley was described as safety-conscious and had instructed his son never to keep a live round aligned with the hammer and firing pin; he also followed a household rule that firearms be stored unloaded.
- Stanley was fatally shot when, as he placed the revolver on a gun rack at home, it fell from its holster, struck a desk, and discharged into his abdomen.
- Evidence indicated that, at the time of the incident, the manual safety was not engaged and a live cartridge was in the chamber aligned with the hammer and firing pin.
- The estate representatives sued under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), alleging defective design and manufacture proximately caused Stanley’s death, and named several defendants including RSR.
- RSR asserted affirmative defenses, including assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court entered summary judgment for RSR and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b); the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record created a genuine dispute of material fact on whether Stanley was contributorily negligent in a manner that barred recovery under the AEMLD.
2. Whether contributory negligence could be decided as a matter of law at the summary-judgment stage based on undisputed evidence of how the revolver was stored and handled.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment for RSR.
- The Court held that Stanley’s conduct constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law.
- Because contributory negligence is a complete defense to an AEMLD claim, the plaintiffs’ claims against RSR were barred.
- Having affirmed on contributory negligence grounds, the Court did not need to decide whether the revolver was defectively designed or whether any defect proximately caused the death.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, once the movant makes a prima facie showing of no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant must produce substantial evidence creating a triable issue.
- In Alabama, contributory negligence is a complete defense in AEMLD actions.
- Contributory negligence requires evidence that the plaintiff (1) put himself in danger’s way and (2) had a conscious appreciation of the danger at the moment of the incident.
- Contributory negligence may be found as a matter of law when material facts are undisputed and reasonable persons can reach only one conclusion.
- A plaintiff’s experience, prior safety practices, and expressed safety rules may establish conscious appreciation of a known risk.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for the distributor because the undisputed evidence showed the decedent knowingly exposed himself to the risk of discharge by handling or storing the revolver with the safety off and a live round aligned with the hammer and firing pin, which constituted contributory negligence barring AEMLD recovery.


Burleson v. RSR Grp. Fla., Inc., 981 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2007)