J-A23024-19 2020 PA Super 239 MARK AND LEAH GUSTAFSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATORS AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE
OF JAMES ROBERT (“J.R.” 
) GUSTAFSON Appellants v. SPRINGFIELD, INC. D/B/A SPRINGFIELD ARMORY AND SALOOM DEPARTMENT STORE AND SALOOM DEPT. STORE, LLC D/B/A SALOOM DEPARTMENT STORE; Appellees THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 207 WDA 2019 Appeal from the Order Entered January 15, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Civil Division at No(s): 1126 of 2018 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
 FILED SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
In this appeal, we must decide whether the trial court erred by finding that a federal statute, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005
(“the PLCAA”)
, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, bars a state lawsuit arising from the shooting death of Mark and Leah Gustafson
’s 13
-year-old son, James Robert
(“J.R.”) Gustafson.
The Gustafsons claim that the PLCAA should not apply to their lawsuit or, alternatively, that it is unconstitutional.
 
J-A23024-19 - 2 - On March 20, 2016, J.R. Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend visited a Westmoreland County home owned by Joshua Hudec.
1
 
J.R.’s friend
 obtained Mr.
Hudec’s
 Springfield Armory, semiautomatic handgun, model XD-9.
See
 
Gustafsons’ Complaint at 5.
The friend removed the handgun
’s clip and
therefore believed it
 “
was unloaded, because . . . there were no adequate indicators or warnings to inform him that a live round remained in the chamber.
”
 Id.
 at 6.
 “
Thinking the handgun was unloaded, the boy pulled the trigger.
” 
 
 Id.
 The chambered bullet fired and unintentionally killed J.R. The District Attorney of Westmoreland County
charged J.R.’s friend
with general homicide under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. The friend eventually pleaded delinquent to involuntary manslaughter
2
 in juvenile court. Mark and Leah Gustafson, as Administrators of
J.R.’s
 estate and in their own right as surviving kin, then sued Springfield Armory, Inc. and Saloom Department Store
(“Gun
-
Industry Defendants”)
.
3
 The Gustafsons asserted
 ____________________________________________ 1
 
We take these facts from the Gustafsons’ complaint,
 because the trial court sustained
the defendants’
preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. Hence, we must
accept the Gustafsons’ factual allegations as true for purposes
of this appeal.
See
 
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist.
, 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008). The complaint does not indicate what role, if any, Mr. Hudec played in these events or whether he was at home when they occurred.
2
 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504(a).
3
 Springfield Armory, which made the gun, has its principal place of business and incorporation in Illinois. Springfield Armory did not contest the trial
 
J-A23024-19 - 3 - that, under the common law of Pennsylvania, the Gun-Industry Defendants were negligent and strictly liable for manufacturing and/or selling the defective handgun that caused
their son’s
 death.
See id.
 at 13-25. They alleged a design defect, because the gun lacked a safety feature to disable it from firing without the clip attached. They believe this defect, along with the 14-year-old friend
’s criminal mi
suse of the handgun
, caused J.R.’s death
. The Gustafsons also averred the Gun-Industry Defendants did not adequately warn the 14-year-old that a live round was still in the chamber after he had removed the clip. After receiving the complaint, the Gun-Industry Defendants immediately sought dismissal of the action through preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
4
 
They asserted immunity from all of the Gustafsons’ common
-law causes of action.
See
 Preliminary Objections at 5. The Gun-Industry
 ____________________________________________
court’s
in personam
 jurisdiction. Saloom Department Store, the Pennsylvania corporation that sold the handgun, operates in Westmoreland County. All
parties agree they are a “Manufacturer” and a “Seller” as Congress defined
those terms in the PLCAA.
4
 The Gun-
Industry Defendants’ assertion of immunity was premature, and
they erroneously raised it as a preliminary objection. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require defendants to raise affirmative defenses, such as immunity from a lawsuit, as new matter in their answer to a complaint.
See
 Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a). However, because the Gustafsons did not file a preliminary objection to the Gun-
Industry Defendants’ preliminary objections in the natu
re
of a demurrer, they waived any objection to the Defendants’ procedural error. Thus, the issues of PLCAA immunity and the Act’s constitutionality are properly
before us in this appeal.
View on Scribd