Opinion ID: 6330342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of the entire statute

Text: Seguin argues that other subsections of the 1999 firearm amendment to the LPLA will become superfluous if we limit Section 60(B) to manufacturing claims. Louisiana courts presume that words, sentences, and provisions in a law are not superfluous. See Guillory v. Pelican Real Est., Inc., 2014-1539, p.3 (La. 3/17/15); 165 So. 3d 875, 877. We “are bound, if possible, to give effect to all parts of a statute and to construe no sentence, clause or word as meaningless and surplusage if a construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can legitimately be found.” Id. We discuss the subsections said to surplusage under our reading of Section 60(B). 7 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499
Seguin argues that because Section 60(C) precludes claims against manufacturers for improper use of firearms, that part of the statute is superfluous if Section 60(B) had already precluded all non-Section 55 manufacturing-defect claims against manufacturers. As we must, we start with the text: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no manufacturer or seller of a firearm who has transferred that firearm in compliance with federal and state law shall incur any liability for any action of any person who uses a firearm in a manner which is unlawful, negligent, or otherwise inconsistent with the purposes for which it was intended. La. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.60(C). Seguin’s solution — reading Section 60(B) to allow a Section 56 design-defect claim — does not solve Seguin’s superfluity problem. Were we to interpret Section 60(B) to allow Section 56 design-defect claims and Section 55 manufacturing-defect claims, Section 60(C)’s preclusion of claims against manufacturers for others’ improper use of firearms would be superfluous to both kinds of claims, and unnecessary for both. It is evident that Section 60(B) is narrower than Section 60(C). Section 60(B) has an actor limitation: “No firearm manufacturer or seller shall be liable for any injury, damage, or death resulting from any shooting injury by any other person” except for a Section 55 manufacturing-defect claim. Id. § 9:2800.60(B) (emphasis added). Section 60(C)’s comparable actor limitation is broader: “no manufacturer or seller of a firearm . . . shall 8 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 incur any liability for any action of any person who uses a firearm” improperly. Id. § 9:2800.60(C) (emphasis added). Thus, Section 60(C) precludes claims based on conduct by a broader category of actors than Section 60(B). Whatever the meaning, we cannot see that any need to read Sections 60(B) and 60(C) together aids Seguin.
Seguin argues that Remington’s interpretation would render Section 60(D), which prevents a manufacturer from being liable if its firearms do not include some sort of safety device that is not actually required by statute, superfluous because it essentially is a preclusion of a specific kind of Section 56 design-defect claim. This is the language: The failure of a manufacturer or seller to insure that a firearm has a device which would: make the firearm useable only by the lawful owner or authorized user of the firearm; indicate to users that a cartridge is in the chamber of the firearm; or prevent the firearm from firing if the ammunition magazine is removed, shall not make the firearm unreasonably dangerous, unless such device is required by federal or state statute or regulation. Id. § 9:2800.60(D). We see no unavoidable surplusage. A way to interpret this subsection in a manner to avoid that problem is that it constitutes a prohibition of a category of manufacturing-defect claims. For example, a plaintiff might argue that because of some manufacturing defect of a firearm, the manufacturer has failed to “insure that a firearm has” the specific safety devices. Though Section 60(B) would not prohibit such a claim, Section 60(D) would, meaning Section 60(D) is not superfluous. Finally, Section 60(D) does not have an actor limitation. Thus, because Section 60(D) precludes claims arising from harm other than that 9 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 resulting from a shooting injury caused by the subset of actors referenced in Section 60(B), Section 60(D) is not superfluous.
Seguin argues that Remington’s interpretation would render Section 60(E) superfluous because it precludes a specific kind of design-defect claim already precluded by Section 60(B). This is what the section provides: (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, the potential of a firearm to cause serious injury, damage, or death as a result of normal function does not constitute a firearm malfunction due to defect in design or manufacture. (2) A firearm may not be deemed defective in design or manufacture on the basis of its potential to cause serious bodily injury, property damage, or death when discharged legally or illegally. Id. § 9:2800.60(E). Like Section 60(D), Section 60(E) does not have an actor limitation, thereby precluding claims where the actor limitation of Section 60(B) does not apply, such as when the harm resulted from a shooting injury caused by someone outside the Section 60(B) actor subset.
Section 60(F) protects manufacturers from certain kinds of claims of a failure to warn: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no manufacturer or seller of a firearm shall incur any liability for failing to warn users of the risk that: (1) A firearm has the potential to cause serious bodily injury, property damage, or death when discharged legally or illegally. (2) An unauthorized person could gain access to the firearm. 10 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 (3) A cartridge may be in the chamber of the firearm. (4) The firearm is capable of being fired even with the ammunition magazine removed. Id. § 9:2800.60(F). Yet again, we rely on the fact that this section includes no actor limitation. Thus, Section 60(B) does not block all failure-to-warn claims but only those based on harm resulting from a shooting injury by a specific actor subset. We conclude that none of the other subsections of Section 9:2800.60 are superfluous under our reading that Section 60(B) forecloses designdefect claims. Even though the meaning of some of the other sections required analytical effort, we at least conclude that any duplication of meaning is not reduced by adding design-defect claims to the coverage of Section 60(B). In other words, Seguin’s reading of Section 60(B) would not resolve the superfluity that her argument would have us identify. We conclude with considering whether this limited meaning is absurd.