## Facts

- Eldon Copier shot his ex-wife, Tanya Copier, on March 21, 1991, using a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver, leaving her paraplegic; he was convicted of attempted criminal homicide.
- On March 20, 1995, Copier sued Smith & Wesson, asserting only strict liability based on the theory that manufacturing handguns is an ultrahazardous (abnormally dangerous) activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520.
- Copier alleged handguns are made to injure or kill and that it is statistically certain some will be used to injure or kill, so the manufacturer should bear strict liability for resulting harm.
- Copier died June 24, 1995; her daughter and personal representative, Bree Renee Lindsey, continued the action.
- The case was removed to federal court in the District of Utah; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), denied leave to amend, and refused to certify a Utah-law question to the Utah Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah law permits strict liability under the ultrahazardous-activity doctrine for injuries caused when a third party criminally misuses a handgun, based solely on the manufacturer’s activity of making handguns.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to certify to the Utah Supreme Court whether firearm manufacturing is ultrahazardous under Utah law, and whether the court of appeals should certify the question.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim, holding Utah law would not treat handgun manufacturing as an ultrahazardous activity under Restatement §§ 519–520.
- The court held the relevant activity is the defendant’s manufacturing conduct, not later intentional criminal misuse by a third party.
- The court affirmed denial of certification and declined to certify the question itself, concluding available Utah principles were sufficient to predict the result.

## Legal Principles

- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities applies to activities whose operation creates unusual risks even when reasonable care is used; it does not extend simply because a lawful product may be misused to cause harm.
- In applying Restatement § 520, courts must assess the defendant’s activity (here, firearm manufacturing), not intervening intentional criminal acts.
- Manufacturing handguns, as a regulated and common lawful activity with recognized lawful uses, is not “abnormally dangerous” within the meaning of Restatement §§ 519–520 under predicted Utah law.
- Certification of state-law questions is discretionary and may be denied where existing state materials allow a reasoned prediction and certification is not necessary to resolve the appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under predicted Utah law, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities does not apply to the manufacture of handguns when the harm results from a third party’s criminal misuse, and it affirmed dismissal while also upholding the refusal to certify the question to the Utah Supreme Court.


Copier ex rel. Lindsey v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 1998)