## Facts

- Gerald Miller was working on or near a truck at a location near a quarry/gravel pit.
- Civil Constructors, Inc. controlled the quarry, which was used by the City of Freeport’s police officers for firearms target practice.
- During target practice, a stray bullet (allegedly a ricochet) traveled toward Miller.
- Miller was injured when he fell from his truck after the bullet came toward him.
- Miller sued Civil Constructors and the City, alleging the discharge of firearms at the quarry was an ultrahazardous (abnormally dangerous) activity supporting strict liability without proof of negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the discharge of firearms for police target practice at a quarry constitutes an ultrahazardous (abnormally dangerous) activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520, permitting strict liability for resulting injuries.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed dismissal of the strict-liability counts against Civil Constructors and the City for failure to state a claim.
- The court held that firearms target practice at the quarry, as alleged, was not an ultrahazardous/abnormally dangerous activity as a matter of law.
- As a result, Miller could not proceed on strict liability; any recovery would have to rest on other theories (including a negligence claim that remained pending and was not before the appellate court).

## Legal Principles

- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities applies when harm results from an activity that creates an unusual risk of serious harm even when conducted with the utmost care.  
- Whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is evaluated under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 factors, including: degree of risk, magnitude of harm, inability to eliminate risk by reasonable care, common usage, appropriateness to the place, and social value versus danger.
- Inability to eliminate the risk through reasonable care is a central consideration; if precautions can substantially reduce the risk, strict liability is disfavored.
- The use of inherently dangerous instruments does not itself establish an abnormally dangerous activity; the doctrine is reserved for activities that are unusually dangerous in context and typically inappropriate to their surroundings.

## Conclusion

The court held that police firearms training at a quarry, though involving dangerous instruments, was sufficiently controllable by reasonable safety measures, relatively common, appropriate to the location, and socially valuable; therefore, it was not abnormally dangerous and did not support strict liability for injury from a stray bullet.


Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc., 272 Ill. App. 3d 263, 651 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1995)