Third person intentionally aimed in suing person's direction, apparently as a prank
The Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s finding that the respondent was not liable in negligence for the appellant’s serious, life-altering injuries from a shot discharged by a third person using the respondent’s firearm.
In Mackie v Drewes, 2025 ABCA 218, the appellant, the respondent, a third person, and a fourth person were at an isolated rural cabin in May 2014. They all had experience with firearms and firearms certifications.
At a nearby dock, the four individuals took turns firing practice shots with the respondent’s rifle. They then returned to the cabin’s deck, where the respondent set his unloaded rifle on a bench. The firearm had its bolt in place, while the ammunition was placed next to it.
The appellant and the respondent went to the cabin’s roof to admire the lake view. The third person picked up the respondent’s rifle, loaded it, and fired a shot toward the roof to try to scare his two companions above. The bullet struck the appellant.
The appellant brought a civil action. The third person, noted in default in the civil action, pleaded guilty to unlawfully causing bodily harm under s. 269 of the Criminal Code.
The respondent, as the rifle’s owner, applied for summary dismissal of the appellant’s civil claim against him. The applications judge granted this application. The appellant appealed that decision. The chambers judge dismissed the appeal.
Respondent not liable
The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the appeal. The court ruled that the appellant failed to show any reviewable error in the chambers judge’s summary dismissal of his claim against the respondent.
First, the court held that the chambers judge made no palpable and overriding error in inferring that the rifle was unloaded when the respondent put it on the bench. The respondent said he was certain it was unloaded in his affidavit and stated that he normally refrained from carrying a loaded weapon upon cross-examination.
Second, the court determined that the chambers judge correctly found that the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care, given the presence of the rifle and ammunition at the social gathering. The court said a reasonable person would contemplate that any careless handling or storing of the firearm might hurt the individuals present.
Third, the court rejected the appellant’s argument that the respondent’s standard of care in the circumstances was to continuously supervise the rifle. The court found that this suggested standard went far beyond what the court expected a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.
The court said a reasonable person would not have foreseen that a person experienced in using firearms would take the rifle, load it, and shoot the roof if he stepped away from the firearm for a few minutes. The court added that an intentional rifle shot in someone’s direction, seemingly as a prank, was not reasonably foreseeable.
Fourth, the court ruled that the respondent’s failure to secure against the potential risk did not amount to a breach of the standard of care, given that a reasonable person would not have anticipated another person’s intentional criminal act. The court said the respondent unloaded the rifle and left it on the bench, where it was not susceptible to accidental discharge.
Fourth, the court noted that the appellant also made causation arguments. The court deemed it unnecessary to tackle causation, given its conclusion that the chambers judge committed no error in seeing no breach of the respondent’s standard of care.
Finally, the court said the third person was undoubtedly liable for his decision to load the rifle and intentionally fire a shot toward the roof, which led to tragic consequences for the appellant.
