# Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. Day

> Alaska Supreme Court · April 6, 1979 · 594 P.2d 38

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629543

## Case

- **Full name:** STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Appellant, v. Michael James DAY, Appellee; Michael James DAY, Cross-Appellant, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., a Connecticut Corporation, Cross-Appellee
- **Court:** Alaska Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 6, 1979
- **Citations:** 594 P.2d 38; 1979 Alas. LEXIS 633
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burke
- **Judges:** Boochever, Ra-Binowitz, Connor, Burke, Dimond, Matthews
- **Cited by:** 89 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Dura Corp. v. Harned, 1985 Alas. LEXIS 279 (1985).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629543

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding risk of danger to recreational user inherent in design of handgun outweighed benefits of the design

## Opinion text

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I think the trial judge’s refusal to allow the jury to consider Sturm, Ruger’s claim that Day’s injury was due, all or in part, to his own negligence was correct. Thus, on that issue I join in the dissenting opinion of my esteemed colleague, Senior Justice Dimond. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusions that the jury’s award for punitive damages was the result of passion or prejudice and that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge not to have reduced the award or ordered a new trial.
The trial court instructed the jury that it could return a verdict for punitive damages for injuries caused by a design defect only upon a finding “that [Sturm, Ruger] acted with reckless indifference towards the safety of its customers, or that its acts . were maliciously or wantonly done.” The jury concluded that Sturm, Ruger’s conduct came within that instruction, and the record certainly supports such a conclusion. As to the amount of the award, the formula that the jury apparently used suggests to me that its verdict was the result of careful deliberation and a keen sense of justice, rather than impermissible passion and prejudice.
The evidence showed that Sturm, Ruger manufactured over 1,501,000 revolvers of the type causing Day’s injury. Sturm, Rug-er’s profit from the manufacture and sale of those firearms alone was enormous, to-talling many millions of dollars. At trial, William Ruger, the president and founder of Sturm, Ruger, testified that redesign of the revolver to cure the defect cost approximately $199,000 and that the increased manufacturing cost per revolver was $1.93. The figure agreed upon by the jury as an appropriate award for punitive damages eq-ualled the amount of the increased manufacturing cost per item multiplied by the approximate number of revolvers sold: $1.93 X 1,500,000 = $2,895,000. Thus, the amount of the award is roughly equal to the profit directly attributable to Sturm, Rug-er’s callous disregard for the safety of its customers. Such being the case, I think there is no merit to the contention that the figure was the result of improper passion or prejudice. Certainly, the amount of the punitive damage award far exceeded Day’s actual damages. However, given the purpose of punitive damages, the award was not excessive.
As to all other issues, I concur in the views expressed by the majority. Thus, I would affirm the judgment of the superior court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629543. Public record. Not legal advice.