Williams ex rel. Raymond v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
2012 Miss. LEXIS 434
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Moore, 20, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the death of Robert Williams, his mother’s live‑in boyfriend.
- Ammunition purchased at Walmart in Indianola was implicated in a wrongful-death suit against Walmart under federal and Mississippi law.
- Plaintiffs allege Walmart violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) by selling ammunition to a minor and that the sale proximately caused Williams’s death.
- The trial court granted Walmart summary judgment, relying on Robinson v. Howard Brothers (Miss. 1979).
- Evidence at issue included a disputed sequence of events: whether Moore or a companion bought the ammo for Moore and whether Walmart had notice Moore was under 21.
- Court affirms summary judgment, holding Moore’s criminal act was not a foreseeable intervening cause and the sale was not a proximate cause of Williams’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Walmart’s sale of ammunition to Moore a proximate cause of Williams’s death? | Moore’s illegal purchase and straw-purchase dynamics foreseeably facilitated the death. | Robinson bars liability where the minor’s criminal act was not foreseeable. | No proximate cause; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Does negligence per se render Walmart liable without proving foreseeability? | Violating Gun Control Act creates per se negligence. | Negligence per se does not bypass causation; foreseeability still required. | Negligence per se exists, but causation/proximate cause still required; here not met. |
| Is the question of foreseeability a matter for the jury or judge at summary judgment? | Foreseeability should be jury-involved per Simpson and related cases. | Foreseeability here is a matter of law given Robinson’s framework. | Foreseeability for this case resolved as a matter of law; no genuine issue of material fact. |
| Did Robinson control the outcome given the facts resembled Munford more than premeditated murder? | Robinson’s logic should be read to cover reckless conduct like Munford. | Robinson’s limited hold applies; minor’s premeditation not present here. | Robinson controls; the sale was not a superseding cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (Miss. 1979) (negligence per se; criminal act not foreseeable; liability requires proximate cause)
- Munford, Inc. v. Peterson, 368 So.2d 213 (Miss. 1979) (foreseeability; distinction from Robinson; alcohol case)
- Penley, 492 So.2d 965 (Miss. 1986) (foreseeability; distinguish Robinson based on minor’s condition)
- Bufkin v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 161 Miss. 594, 137 So. 517 (Miss. 1931) (intervening cause doctrine in negligence)
- Permenter v. Milner Chevrolet Co., 229 Miss. 385, 91 So.2d 243 (Miss. 1956) (wilful or criminal acts may break causal chain; foreseeability)
- Simpson v. Boyd, 880 So.2d 1047 (Miss. 2004) (foreseeability and causation linked to negligence per se)
- Gulledge v. Shaw, 880 So.2d 288 (Miss. 2004) (causation in negligence; foreseeability)
- Mauney v. Gulf Refining Co., 193 Miss. 421, 9 So.2d 780 (Miss. 1942) (circle of foreseeability description)