Jones v. Secord
684 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff executrix sues gun owner for negligent storage and timely reporting of a stolen handgun after decedent Gary Jones was killed by a man wielding that weapon.
- Camp cabin kept a hidden revolver under a water-heater platform; ammo stored in plain sight; the cabin was normally locked when unoccupied.
- Woodbury, former grandson visitor, was banned in 1994 and later committed felonies and murders in 2007, including using the revolver; his whereabouts near the camp are disputed.
- Sarah Barton discovered signs of a break-in at the camp in late June 2007 and reported events intermittently; the defendant and Barton cleaned and did not call authorities.
- Plaintiff alleges the defendant knew or should have known Woodbury’s presence and risk, and that failure to secure or timely report enabled the murders.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of the gun owner; plaintiff appeals. The case is in diversity, applying New Hampshire law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to third parties under NH law | Jones argues defendant owed a duty to prevent third-party crime via special circumstances. | Secord contends NH law imposes no duty to protect against third-party criminal acts absent exception. | No duty found; special-circumstances exception not satisfied. |
| Whether failure to report theft supports liability | Timely reporting could have prevented further harm; dispute about when theft was learned. | Defendant did not know of theft until after the murders; no genuine issue on timing. | Failure-to-report claim rejected. |
| Whether failure to secure handgun creates liability | Unsecured handgun near an at-risk individual created an especial temptation and opportunity for misconduct. | Records do not show foreseeability or a duty; NH precedent limits such liability. | No priors showed a legally cognizable duty under NH law. |
| Application of Remsburg/ Dupont special circumstances | Special circumstances exception should apply due to risk created by defendant's conduct. | NH Supreme Court requires very high risk/foreseeability for the exception; not met here. | Erie-diversity and NH law foreclose application of the exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 816 A.2d 1001 (N.H. 2003) (special circumstances require very great foreseeability)
- Dupont v. Aavid Thermal Techs., Inc., 798 A.2d 587 (N.H. 2002) (high bar for special circumstances in duty to third parties)
- Walls v. Oxford Mgmt. Co., 633 A.2d 103 (N.H. 1993) (duty to protect from third-party criminal acts generally not imposed)
- Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 761 A.2d 417 (N.H. 2000) (management could foresee risk where group behavior harms patrons)
- Berry v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc., 879 A.2d 1124 (N.H. 2005) (special circumstances recognized in narrow, limited contexts)
- Ward v. Inishmaan Assocs. Ltd., 931 A.2d 1235 (N.H. 2007) (discusses applicability of special-circumstances doctrine)