Janet S. Delana, Individually, and as the Wife of Decedent Tex C. Delana v. CED Sales, Inc. d/b/a Odessa Gun & Pawn, Charles Doleshal, and Derrick Dady

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) preempts the plaintiff’s ordinary negligence claim arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm. The court held that the PLCAA does not preempt a negligent entrustment claim, including one against a firearm seller, when the seller allegedly knew or should have known that the purchaser was likely to use the firearm in a manner posing an unreasonable risk of physical injury. The court rejected constitutional challenges to the PLCAA, reversed the judgment insofar as it barred the negligent entrustment claims, affirmed otherwise, and remanded.

Holdings

1. The PLCAA expressly preempts Delana's general negligence claim because it is a qualified civil liability action seeking damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by a third party.
2. The PLCAA does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it does not commandeer Missouri's executive officials or legislative processes; it merely requires state courts to dismiss actions preempted by federal law.
3. The PLCAA does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it limits, but does not eliminate, Delana's remedies; her negligent-entrustment claim remains available.
4. Missouri law recognizes a negligent-entrustment claim against a seller when the seller supplies a chattel to a person whom the seller knows or reasonably should know is likely to use it in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of physical harm.
5. Delana's negligent-entrustment claim was not preempted and was viable under Missouri law; consequently, the individual claims against Doleshal and Dady were not moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act preempts Delana's common-law negligence claim against the firearms seller and its representatives.
2. Whether the PLCAA is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the PLCAA's negligent-entrustment exception permits Delana to pursue a state-law claim against a firearms seller.
4. Whether Missouri law recognizes negligent entrustment when the chattel is supplied through a sale.
5. Whether the individual claims against the store manager and corporate principal were moot after the circuit court rejected the underlying negligent-entrustment claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded