Nelson v. Original Smith & Wesson Business Entities and/or Corporations
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jay Dee Nelson and Shannon Nelson have four minor children. One of the Nelson children was handling a Smith & Wesson (“S & W”) revolver when the gun discharged and struck another Nelson child, causing her to become a paraplegic. The Nelsons filed a products liability action against S & W, bringing claims of negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, and failure to retrofit. The district court granted S & W’s motion to dismiss and denied the Nelsons’ post-dismissal mo tions. The Nelsons appeal these decisions, and we affirm.
First, the Nelsons allege that S & W should have outfitted the revolver with a “safety-lock and/or safety-key lock device” (“safety lock”) when it was issued, and that S & W’s failure to do so caused the Nelson child’s injuries. Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), claims must be substantively plausible under the applicable law in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See id. at 1949. Accordingly, to recover under this theory, the Nelsons must allege facts showing that Alaska law would recognize that S & W had a duty to include a safety lock on the gun when it was manufactured in 1972.