Pa. high court blocks lawsuit against gunmaker by parents of slain Westmoreland County teen

In 2018, Westmoreland County’s Mark and Leah Gustafson sued the gunmaker whose product killed their teenage son two years earlier.

But the state Supreme Court last week blocked their efforts, finding that federal law makes gunmakers immune from liability in most cases.

In a 45-page opinion issued last week, the court found that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, designed to protect the gun industry from civil litigation, prohibits the Gustafsons from suing in a situation where the underlying harm was caused by a purposeful act.

In this instance, that purposeful act, the court said, was committed by a 14-year-old boy, John Burnsworth III, who pulled the trigger and killed J.R. Gustafson, 13.

The shooting happened at a home in Westmoreland County that the teens were visiting on March 20, 2016.

Burnsworth got a handgun from the homeowner and removed the magazine from it. He believed it was unloaded, pointed it at J.R. and pulled the trigger.

The gun, made by Springfield Armory in Illinois, still had a bullet in the chamber, and J.R. was killed.

Burnsworth was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for involuntary manslaughter.

Legal battle

J.R.’s parents sued Springfield and Saloom Department Store in Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court, alleging negligence and strict liability for the manufacture and sale of a defective handgun.

A victory by the Mt. Pleasant couple would have marked a watershed moment for gun-safety advocates in Pennsylvania.

They argued that the gun should not have been capable of firing with the magazine removed or, in the alternative, there should have been better indicators on the weapon to show it was still loaded.

However, Springfield cited the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers “for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms products or ammunition products by others when the products function as designed and intended.”

The suit was initially thrown out in Westmoreland County, but the Gustafsons appealed.

The state Superior Court, an intermediate appeals court, concluded that the federal act was unconstitutional and remanded the case to the trial court.

But the manufacturer and department store appealed.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court accepted the case and heard oral argument in Downtown Pittsburgh on April 8, 2024.

Springfield Armory’s lawyer argued that because Burnsworth was adjudicated delinquent, J.R.’s death was caused by criminal misuse of the firearm.

The Gustafsons’ attorney, Jonathan Lowy, disagreed, arguing that because the adjudication was made in juvenile court, it did not constitute a criminal conviction.

But the state Supreme Court disagreed.

“Even though the juvenile was charged under the Juvenile Act rather than through the criminal division, that does not change the fact that his actions constituted the crime of involuntary manslaughter as set forth in the Crimes Code,” the opinion said.

No exception

Lowy also tried to argue that the Gustafsons’ claim fell under an exception in the federal act for product liability.

But attorneys for Springfield argued that the exception for product liability does not apply “where the discharge of the firearm was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense.”

The court agreed.

“We find the key question is not whether the juvenile made a ‘choice or determination’ to shoot J.R. but rather whether he made ‘a choice or determination’ that caused the discharge of the firearm which constituted a criminal offense,” the court wrote.

Burnsworth chose to pull the trigger, they continued.

“It is of no moment that the juvenile did not intend to shoot J.R.,” the opinion said.

Lowy, who is also the president and founder of Global Action on Gun Violence, argued that the act protecting the gun industry is unconstitutional.

The court disagreed, finding it constitutional under the commerce clause.

Congress, the court wrote, passed the act to protect firearms manufacturers from an “unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce,” and found they should not be held liable “for harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals(.)”

Attorneys for the Gustafsons and Springfield did not return messages seeking comment on Monday.