Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.

Illinois Appellate Court, Second District · Torts

TortsStrict LiabilityUltrahazardous Activitiesstrict liabilityultrahazardous activityabnormally dangerous activityfirearmsRestatement section 519

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a stray bullet ricocheted during firearm target practice in a nearby gravel pit and caused him to fall from a truck. In counts against Civil Constructors and the City, he claimed defendants were strictly liable because they controlled the premises or discharged firearms through officers, agents, or employees. The complaint alleged defendants knew, or in one count should have known, that discharging firearms is an ultrahazardous and highly dangerous activity. The issue concerned only whether those allegations could support strict liability.

Issue

Whether, under Illinois law, the discharge of firearms at a quarry shooting range may be classified as an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity so as to support strict liability. More specifically, the question was whether plaintiff's complaint stated a legally sufficient strict liability claim on that theory.

Rule

An activity is ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous for strict-liability purposes only if, as a matter of law, the Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 519 and 520 considerations justify imposing liability despite the exercise of all reasonable care. The court adopted the section 520 factors as an aid in deciding the question: high degree of risk, likelihood of great harm, inability to eliminate the risk by reasonable care, uncommon usage, inappropriateness of the place, and whether dangerous attributes outweigh community value. Strict liability is ordinarily reserved for activities for which no degree of care can truly provide safety.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Nolan Briggs was struck by bullet fragments after a private security company held supervised handgun qualification drills at an outdoor training lot next to an industrial park. Nolan sues the company only on a strict-liability theory, alleging that firing handguns is inherently ultrahazardous even when conducted carefully.

How should the court most likely rule on the strict-liability claim?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that whether an activity is abnormally dangerous is a question of law guided by Restatement §§ 519 and 520. Although guns are dangerous, the court reasoned that harm from their use can be virtually eliminated by reasonable or even utmost care, so firearm discharge ordinarily sounds in negligence rather than strict liability. That analysis supports dismissal here.