## Facts

- Lawrence Secord owned a small, usually locked hunting cabin in Wentworth Location, New Hampshire; a key was hidden on the property and known to family members.
- Secord kept a revolver concealed inside the cabin and kept the ammunition in plain sight.
- Secord’s grandson, Michael Woodbury, had visited the cabin as a child but was barred from the property around 1994 after a family dispute.
- After the estrangement, Woodbury committed multiple felonies and was incarcerated; the record did not show that Secord knew of this criminal history.
- In May 2007, Woodbury briefly appeared unannounced at Secord’s home in Maine; Secord received him coldly and Woodbury left within minutes.
- Shortly before July 2, 2007, a friend reported signs of possible occupancy at the cabin (sheets over windows and a radio playing); Secord did not immediately investigate or contact law enforcement.
- On July 2, 2007, Woodbury stole Secord’s handgun from the cabin and used it to murder three people, including Gary Jones.
- The estate of Gary Jones sued Secord for negligent storage of the handgun and for failing promptly to investigate or report the suspected break-in and theft.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New Hampshire negligence law, Secord owed a duty to members of the public to prevent harm from Woodbury’s criminal homicides based on Secord’s firearm storage practices and his response to indications of a possible break-in.
2. Whether Secord’s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the murders, or whether Woodbury’s intervening criminal acts severed the causal chain.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Secord.
- Under New Hampshire law’s general rule, Secord had no duty to protect others from third-party criminal acts absent a recognized exception.
- The record did not show a particularized risk of harm or a sufficient degree of foreseeability that Woodbury would steal the gun and commit murders.
- Because no actionable duty arose (and causation was too attenuated), Secord could not be held liable for Woodbury’s homicides.

## Legal Principles

- New Hampshire generally imposes no duty on a private person to protect others from third-party criminal acts absent a special relationship or a recognized exception.
- An exception may apply only when a defendant’s conduct creates or increases a sufficiently particularized and foreseeable risk of harm from third-party misconduct.
- Generalized awareness that firearms can be stolen and misused is insufficient; liability requires a more specific, identifiable risk and a stronger showing of foreseeability.
- Where foreseeability is lacking, an intentional criminal act by a third party functions as a superseding cause that defeats negligence liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that, without evidence making the theft and homicidal use of the gun a particularized and sufficiently foreseeable risk, a gun owner’s alleged negligent storage and delayed response to signs of unauthorized entry did not create a duty or establish proximate causation for an estranged relative’s later murders with the stolen firearm.


Jones v. Secord, 684 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012)