The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed the “suicide rule” as a viable defense. In Johnson vs. Walmart Stores, 588 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2009) the defendant sold bullets to plaintiff’s wife without asking her to present the identification card required by Illinois law. She subsequently used the bullets to commit suicide. In fact, plaintiff’s wife did not have such a card and the sale by defendant was a violation of the Firearm Owners’ Identification Card Act.
Plaintiff sued for negligence, wrongful death and two emotional distress claims. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and argued that suicide is an independent intervening event that prevents plaintiff from showing proximate cause. The District Court agreed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Illinois followed the general rule that a plaintiff may not recover from a decedent’s suicide following a tortious act because suicide is an independent intervening event that the tortfeasor cannot be expected to foresee. Plaintiff argued that defendant’s failure to follow the FOIC Act by selling the bullets was a violation which constituted prima facie evidence of negligence and that suicide did not break the chain of causation within the context of application of the prima facie evidence rule. In other words, whether the alleged violation of a public safety statute alone can generate a reasonable inference of proximate cause in the presence of a suicide. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the suicide was not reasonably foreseeable and pointed out that courts throughout the country have stood firm in their adherence to their traditional suicide rule even though the FOIC Act has been in effect since 1992. And held that suicide is an independent intervening event that breaks the chain of causation even after an illicit gun sale.