# Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.

> California Supreme Court · August 6, 2001 · 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782590

## Case

- **Full name:** MARILYN MERRILL Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NAVEGAR, INC., Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 6, 2001
- **Citations:** 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370; 26 Cal. 4th 465; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 8171; 28 P.3d 116; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6704; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 4945
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennard
- **Judges:** Chin, Kennard, Werdegar
- **Cited by:** 626 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782590

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “most of the evidentiary matters relevant to applying the risk/benefit test in strict liability cases are similar to the issues typically presented in a negligent design case,” which is "not surprising, because to say that a product was negligently designed is to …
- explaining the elements of the “negligent performance 13 of a contract” cause of action under California contract law
- rejecting theory that unmediated online sales of hazardous items represent negligent entrustment
- discussing the elements of various 21 products liability claims under California law

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Concurring.
I join in the majority opinion.
One cannot read the facts of this case without feeling the utmost sympathy for the families of the eight persons killed and for the six others wounded by Gian Luigi Ferri, who in his rampage used two TEC-9 assault weapons manufactured by defendant Navegar, Inc. And one feels dismay at the insensitivity of defendant’s marketing director, who had told the New York Times that he welcomed damning criticism by law enforcement of the TEC-9, a- popular weapon with criminals. He explained: “I’m kind of flattered. It just has that advertising tingle to it. Hey, it’s talked about, it’s read about, the media write about it. That generates more sales for me.”
Whatever personal emotions and personal views members of this court may have in this tragic case, those feelings must be put aside in resolving the narrow legal question decided here. The issue requires an interpretation of subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 1714.4, which provides that in an action for products liability “no firearm . . . shall be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to cause serious injury, damage, or death when discharged.” I agree with the majority that plaintiffs’ cause of action for “common law negligence” falls within that provision. As the majority explains, in enacting that provision, the Legislature intended to bar the kind of action that plaintiffs here brought against Navegar.
Enacting statutes is within the province of the Legislature. The task of the judiciary is to interpret those statutes by ascertaining and effectuating the Legislature’s intent. It is not for us to question the wisdom of the Legislature’s considered judgments. (People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal.4th 1, 9 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 776 , 947 P.2d 1313 ]; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 909 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 ].) Any change in Civil Code section 1714.4 must come from the Legislature.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782590. Public record. Not legal advice.