Case Name: RESTEINER v. STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC; THOMAS v. STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1997-05-09
Citations: 223 Mich. App. 374
Docket Number: Docket No. 185069, 185116
Parties: RESTEINER v STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC THOMAS v STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC
Judges: Before: White, P.J., and Griffin and D. C. Kolenda , JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 223
Pages: 374–382

Head Matter:
RESTEINER v STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC THOMAS v STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC
Docket No. 185069, 185116.
Submitted September 12, 1996, at Lansing.
Decided May 9, 1997, at 9:15 A.M.
Leave to appeal sought.
Harold Resteiner, as personal representative of the estate of Kevin D. Lovett, in one action in the Genesee Circuit Court against Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., and Brent Walker and James and Anna Thomas, in another action in the same court against the same defendants, alleged negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability against Sturm, Ruger and negligence and strict liability against Walker in connection with the deaths of the plaintiffs’ decedents, who were shot by Ronnie Jones with a .44 caliber handgun that was manufactured and sold to Walker by Sturm, Ruger and that was stolen by an unknown person from Walker’s home. The actions were consolidated, and the court, Geoffrey L. Nethercut, J., granted summary disposition for the defendants with respect to all claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and the appeals were consolidated.
The Court of Appeals held-.
1. For the reasons stated in Buczkowski v McKay, 441 Mich 96 (1992), and King v R G Industries, Inc, 182 Mich App 343 (1990), Sturm, Ruger is under no duty for which it could be liable for negligence in not limiting its marketing of the gun in question to segments of society, such as the police or the military, that are more able to secure and protect firearms than the public at large.
2. The theft and criminal misuse of a firearm are open and obvious dangers against which Sturm, Ruger owed no duty to warn purchasers.
3. The plaintiffs’ claims against Sturm, Ruger of gross negligence and of failure to recall an ultra hazardous product are without merit under the rationale of King, supra.
4. Walker’s possession of the handgun was not an abnormally dangerous activity for which he could be held strictly liable.
5. Walker had no duty to protect the decedents from harm in the absence of special relationships between Walker and the decedents and in view of the fact that the decedents were shot in a criminal assault by a third person.
6. Sturm, Ruger is entitled to sanctions on appeal. The plaintiffs’ claims on appeal are not supported by any authority recognized in Michigan or any other jurisdiction; the plaintiffs have not advanced a reasonable, good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and the plaintiffs’ appeals are vexatious because they were taken without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. The cases must be remanded for a determination and an award to Sturm, Ruger of actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in defending against the plaintiffs’ appeals.
Affirmed and remanded.
White, P.J., dissenting in part, stated that Sturm, Ruger is not entitled to sanctions on appeal because the appeals were not taken for purposes of hindrance or delay, or without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal.
1. Products Liability — Handguns — Manufacturers and Sellers.
The manufacturer and seller of a large-caliber handgun stolen from its owner is not liable for negligence to those injured or killed by such handgun in not limiting marketing of the handgun to those segments of society, such as the police or the military, that are more able to secure and protect firearms than the public at large.
2. Products Liability — Handguns — Manufacturers and Sellers.
Theft and criminal misuse of handguns are open and obvious dangers about which a manufacturer and seller of handguns does not have to warn purchasers.
3. Negligence — Handguns — Owners.
The possession of a handgun by its owner is not an abnormally dangerous activity for which the owner can be held strictly liable where the handgun is stolen and is used by another to injure or kill a person in a criminal assault.
4. Negligence — Handguns — Owners.
The owner of a handgun that is stolen from the owner is not liable for negligence in not protecting a person who is injured or killed with the handgun in a criminal assault by another in the absence of a special relationship between the handgun owner and the person injured or killed.
Dean, Dean, Segar & Hart, P.C. (by Max Dean and Clifford H. Harf), for Harold Resteiner and James and Anna Thomas.
Cline, Cline & Griffin (by Glenn M. Simmington), for Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.
Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner P.L.C. (by Scott C. Strattard, Gregory E. Meter, and James Hecht Nisidis), for Brent Walker.
Before: White, P.J., and Griffin and D. C. Kolenda , JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Griffin, J.
In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims against defendants. We affirm.
We concur and join in all portions of Judge White's opinion except section vi. Regarding the issue of sanctions, we find that plaintiffs' claims of appeal are not supported by any authority from Michigan, other jurisdictions, or recognized legal sources. As stated by defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., in the. introductory paragraph of its brief:
The trial court was entirely correct in dismissing plaintiffs' respective complaints for failure to state any legally recognizable cause of action. Michigan courts have already repeatedly rejected plaintiffs' theories. Buczkowski v McKay, 441 Mich 96; 490 NW2d 330 (1992), reh den 441 Mich 1202; 491 NW2d 830 (1992); King v R G Industries, Inc, 182 Mich App 343; 451 NW2d 874 (1990); Raines v Colt Industries, Inc, 757 F Supp 819 (ED Mich, 1991). Additionally, plaintiffs' theories have been rejected in every state to consider them, as long ago as 1973 and as recently as August 2, 1995. See, e.g., Bennet v Cincinnati Checker Cab Co, 353 F Supp 1206 (ED Ky, 1973); Forni v Sturm, Ruger, et al, slip op No. 132994-94 (S Ct NY County, NY, 8/2/95). Plaintiffs' complaints simply ignore this clear precedent.
In light of this authority, as well as Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495; 418 NW2d 381 (1988), and Scott v Harper Recreation, Inc, 444 Mich 441; 506 NW2d 857 (1993), we conclude that plaintiffs have not advanced a reasonable, good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. MCR 2.114(D)(2). For these reasons, we hold that plaintiffs' appeals are vexatious because they were taken without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. MCR 7.216(C)(1)(a). Dillon v DeNooyer Chevrolet Geo, 217 Mich App 163, 169-170; 550 NW2d 846 (1996); Cvengros v Farm Bureau Ins, 216 Mich App 261; 548 NW2d 698 (1996).
The motion by defendant Sturm, Ruger for sanctions on appeal is granted. Pursuant to MCR 7.216(C)(2), we remand to the circuit court for a determination and an award of defendant Sturm, Ruger's actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in defending against plaintiffs' appeals.
Affirmed. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
D. C. Kolenda, J., concurred.