James v. Wild West Pawn, 1 CA-CV 16-0278

Wild West Pawn (Arizona), a federally licensed firearms dealer, sold a Heckler & Koch .40 pistol via GunBroker.com to a Virginia buyer; Wild West shipped the firearm to the Marine Corps Exchange in Norfolk, Virginia.
James, an employee at the Marine Corps Exchange, handled the shipped pistol, which discharged while he was inspecting it; he sued Wild West in Arizona for negligence, alleging the gun was shipped with a live round chambered.
Wild West moved for partial summary judgment contending Virginia law (which recognizes contributory negligence) should apply under Arizona choice-of-law principles; James argued Arizona law should apply and asserted the injury occurred on federal property (a military base/exchange).
Wild West alternatively argued 28 U.S.C. § 5001 (federal enclave rule) preempts Arizona choice-of-law analysis and requires application of Virginia law if the injury occurred on land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
The superior court applied Arizona choice-of-law rules, held Virginia law applied, and then entered summary judgment for Wild West because James would recover nothing under Virginia law; the court did not address § 5001’s applicability.
On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the superior court should first resolve whether § 5001 applies (i.e., whether the injury occurred on a federal enclave with exclusive federal jurisdiction), and the record was insufficient to decide that issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state’s law governs the negligence claim?	Arizona law and its comparative-fault regime should govern.	Virginia law governs under Arizona choice-of-law rules; contributory negligence would bar recovery.	Court vacated judgment; did not decide choice-of-law because § 5001’s applicability must be determined first.
Does 28 U.S.C. § 5001 (federal enclave rule) require applying the state law where the injury occurred?	Argued the injury occurred on federal property but provided no evidentiary support.	§ 5001 preempts state choice-of-law and requires applying Virginia law if the site is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.	Court remanded for factfinding because the record is inadequate to determine whether the site was a federal enclave with exclusive jurisdiction.
Was the superior court’s summary judgment proper without resolving § 5001?	N/A (issue raised on appeal).	N/A	Court held the superior court erred by not first resolving § 5001 and vacated the judgment.
Was there evidence that jurisdiction over the site was exclusive to the federal government?	James asserted it was a military exchange on a base (federal), but produced no evidence.	Pointed to possible federal enclave; noted responses by both Norfolk Police and Naval Base Police suggest shared jurisdiction.	Court found the record ambiguous and ordered remand for an adequately developed record.

Vasina v. Grumman Corp., 644 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (applied state law under federal enclave statute when injury occurred on federal enclave)
Pratt v. Kelly, 585 F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1978) (concurrent state-federal jurisdiction defeats application of federal enclave statute)