Products Liability Law Reporter

A Kentucky appellate court held that dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was warranted in a firearms products liability suit brought by an injured handgun owner.

Robert Braun purchased a handgun manufactured by Bearman Industries, LLC—a Utah-based firearms manufacturer that sells to wholesale distributors throughout the United States—from Top Dollar Pawn, LLC, a limited liability company located in Lexington, Ky. While Braun was unloading the handgun several days later, it discharged, injuring his hand. He sued Bearman Industries, LLC, and Top Dollar Pawn, LLC, alleging claims for strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. Bearman moved to dismiss, arguing that the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over Bearman. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend or vacate, but the trial court affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant argued that it did not conduct business in Kentucky and that the handgun here had passed through two different pawn shops and three different owners before Braun purchased it. The plaintiff countered that the defendant had placed its handguns into the stream of commerce voluntarily and was obtaining revenue from its Kentucky firearm sales. Moreover, the plaintiff argued that the defendant regularly conducted business with its distributors and knew that the distributors regularly sold products in Kentucky.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that when a lawsuit is filed in Kentucky against a nonresident defendant, the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction over the defendant by showing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state. To determine whether a plaintiff has met this burden, the court said, it must ascertain whether the cause of action arises from conduct or activity of the defendant that fits into one of the enumerated categories of the Kentucky long-arm statute, including transacting business in the Commonwealth, contracting to supply services or goods there, or causing tortious injury there. Additionally, a court must determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction over the nonresident offends federal due process rights, the court said.

Applying these principles, the court found no evidence that the defendant had transacted any business in Kentucky, contracted to supply goods or services there, or committed a tortious act there. The presence in Kentucky of the defendant’s weapons is insufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction, the court said. Nevertheless, the court determined that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute in this case based on its derivation of substantial revenue and the nexus existing between the allegedly faulty firearm and the plaintiff’s alleged injury.

Turning to the due process consideration, the court considered whether the defendant purposefully availed itself to the convenience of a Kentucky forum by conducting activities there and invoking the benefits and protections of its law. Citing case law, the court noted that merely placing goods into the stream of commerce is generally insufficient to constitute purposeful availment, adding that a defendant’s transmission of goods permits the exercise of jurisdiction only where the defendant has targeted the forum by, for example, designing a product for the state’s market, advertising in the state, marketing through a distributor in the state, and providing regular advice to customers there. Here, the court said, there was no evidence the defendant sold to a Kentucky distributor, that the defendant’s distributors solicited business there, or that the defendant was aware of its distributors’ activities in Kentucky. Moreover, the court found no evidence that the defendant knew of the destination of its firearms after they were sold to the distributors or that the defendant encouraged their sale in Kentucky. In sum, the court held, there was no evidence the defendant reached out to Kentucky and targeted its residents.

Consequently, the court concluded that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant did not meet the minimal requirements of due process, and that the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against Bearman was proper.

Citation: Braun v. Bearman Indus., LLC, 2024 WL 2227064 (Ky. Ct. App. May 17, 2024).