Opinion ID: 6330342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Possible absurdity

Text: In Louisiana, “a court must give effect to the literal application of the language of a statute . . . except in the rare case where such application will produce absurd or unreasonable results.” Pumphrey, 2005-0979, p.14; 925 So. 2d at 1211. We see no evidence from that state’s caselaw that a search is to be made for an actual explanation from the legislature. Instead, we are “to interpret the laws so as to give them the meaning which the lawmakers obviously intended them to have and not to construe them so as to give them absurd or ridiculous meanings.” Savoie v. Rubin, 2001-3275, p.4 (La. 6/21/02); 820 So. 2d 486, 488. 11 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 Remington suggests that the legislature might have been fearful of “regulation through litigation.” That is, allowing design-defect claims to proceed under the circumstances set forth in Section 60(B) poses a risk that judges and juries could deem certain designs defective, resulting in a virtual prohibition of those designs in all cases and for all manufacturers. By contrast, manufacturing-defect claims do not present the same risk of regulation through litigation because they do not affect entire product lines or industry-wide designs. It is evident that the legislature sought to restrain liability. The first section of the 1999 amendment addressing firearms stated “that the Louisiana Products Liability Act was not designed to impose liability on a manufacturer or seller for the improper use of a properly designed and manufactured product,” and further, “that the manufacture and sale of firearms” by those who are properly licensed “is lawful activity and is not unreasonably dangerous.” 1999 La. Sess. Law Serv. 1299 (codified at § 9:2800.60). We consider this legislative statement of purpose in our analysis of the possibility of absurdity in the manner in which we have interpreted Section 60(B). Of course, this introductory section as well as Section 60(E) both refer to design defects. We conclude that such references neither suggest absurdity nor create ambiguity. A somewhat broader hortatory statement of purpose than is realized in actual statutory language is not absurd, and, possibly, not even unusual. The plain text leads to preventing a meaningful category of potential claims against the manufacturers of firearms. In light of the overall focus of this legislation on providing a variety of protections to firearm manufacturers, we see no absurdity in giving these words the meaning they obviously have. 12 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 We REVERSE and RENDER judgment for Remington. 13 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499