Case 1:21-cv-11269-FDS Document 67 Filed 11/22/21 Page 33 of 58
2.
The “design defect” exception does not apply.
Mexico also cannot benefit from the design-defect exception. This exception applies only to claims for injuries resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage[.] 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v). Mexico tries to meet this exception by alleging that defendants designed their firearms “to be particularly lethal and easily modified into machine guns,” Compl. ¶ 336, and further faults defendants for failing to include reasonable security features that would prevent their firearms from being used by cartels for military-style assaults by cartels, id. ¶¶ 35366. None of this works. First, all agree that all of Mexico’s alleged injuries were “caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense,” 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v)—namely, Mexican criminals unlawfully shooting people. As a result, defendants cannot be considered the legal “cause” of the injuries. Second, the PLCAA’s design-defect exception applies only in the case of injuries “resulting directly from a defect.” 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v) (emphasis added). But as noted above, Mexico alleges only indirect, derivative injuries. Numerous cases have dismissed designdefect claims under the PLCAA on precisely these grounds.7 Third, Mexico does not assert a valid design-defect claim because it alleges only the deliberate misuse of products that function exactly as designed. As the PLCAA makes clear,
7
See, e.g., Adames v. Sheahan, 909 N.E.2d 742, 765 (Ill. 2009) (“[T]he discharge of the Beretta was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense . . . . Accordingly, plaintiffs’ design defect claims . . . are barred by the PLCAA.”); Ryan v. Hughes-Ortiz, 959 N.E.2d 1000, 1008-09 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (the “unlawful possession of [a] Glock pistol . . . constituted a criminal offense and the design defect exception is therefore not applicable”); cf. Travieso v. Glock Inc., 526 F. Supp. 3d 533 (D. Ariz. 2021) (order) (noting that the design-defect exception is limited and does not allow “claims of information defect or . . . inadequate warning[]”).
24
