P, aged 14, and two friends the same age, Mercer (D) and Domann (D) went hunting. Mercer (D) did not know of the hunting plans until he arrived at P's house. Mercer (D) did not inform his parents of the plans. Mercer (D) had never gone hunting prior to the incident and had never completed a hunter safety course. Mercer (D) had 'no real experience' with weapons other than BB guns prior to the incident. The only training Mercer (D) received from his father regarding firearms was 'to not point guns at people and stuff like this.' Mercer (D) was aware that he was required to possess a hunter safety certificate in order to hunt on another person's property. Mercer (D) did give $5 to buy a box of .22 shells. Just before the accidental discharge of the weapon, P was climbing up a creek bank. Mercer (D) knew that Domann (D) was carrying the loaded shotgun in the immediate area, but he was not paying attention. Mercer (D) gave no warning to P regarding Domann's (D) line of fire prior to the shooting. Mercer (D) did not know the meaning of 'line of fire.' The shotgun held by Domann (D) accidentally discharged, striking P and resulting in a paralyzing injury. P sued Ds and their parents. Domann (D) settled. Mercer (D) was granted summary judgment by the trial court. It held that Mercer's (D) parents owed no duty to P and that Mercer (D) breached no duty owed to P. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.