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

Miller (P) sued Ds alleging that he was injured when a stray bullet ricocheted during the course of firearm target practice in a nearby gravel pit and caused him to fall from a truck. One of P's counts was in strict liability. The court dismissed the strict liability counts of his complaint against Ds. Counts I and V of the complaint alleged that Ds were strictly liable for injuries to P arising from purportedly 'ultrahazardous' activity for which D were legally responsible either because of their control of the premises or their discharge of firearms. P stated that D through its officers, agents or employees, knew (alternatively in count I, 'or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known') that 'discharging firearms is an ultrahazardous, highly dangerous activity' which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. P appealed.

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.