Shoemaker v. Funkhouser: Virginia Landowners Can Be Liable for Backyard Gunfire
A family should be safe inside its own home. That bedrock idea is at the center of a decision the Supreme Court of Virginia handed down late last month — a ruling that, for the first time in years, meaningfully expands when Virginia landowners must answer for dangerous activities they permit on their property.
The tragedy behind the case
The facts of Shoemaker v. Funkhouser, decided March 25, 2021, are as simple as they are devastating. Landowners allowed their grandson to shoot targets on their rural property — in the direction of a neighboring house that was within sight. A bullet traveled to that neighboring property, passed through the wall of the home, and killed Gina Shoemaker inside.
Her family brought a wrongful death suit against the landowners. The trial court dismissed it, relying on Virginia's Recreational Land Use Act, Code § 29.1-509 — a statute that immunizes landowners who open their land, without charge, for hunting and other recreational uses.
What the Supreme Court held
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, in a closely divided decision, and revived the family's case. Two holdings matter:
1. The Recreational Land Use Act did not immunize these landowners in these circumstances. The statute exists to encourage landowners to open their land for recreation; it is not a blanket shield for every harm connected to recreational activity on private land.
2. A landowner owes a duty not to permit shooting toward an occupied dwelling that the landowner knows bullets are likely to strike. A landowner who allows a guest to fire toward a neighbor's occupied home, with sight of the danger, can be held responsible when the foreseeable happens.
The citation is Shoemaker v. Funkhouser, 299 Va. 471, 856 S.E.2d 174 (2021).
Why this decision is significant
Virginia is traditionally cautious about landowner liability for the conduct of third persons. The general rule has long been that a landowner is not the insurer of what guests do. Shoemaker does not overturn that rule — but it draws a firm line at one of the most dangerous activities imaginable: live gunfire aimed toward a place where people live.
The decision also narrows the Recreational Land Use Act in an important way. Defense lawyers have often read § 29.1-509 broadly, as if any injury with a recreational connection on private land is immune from suit. The Supreme Court's refusal to apply the statute here signals that immunity has limits — particularly where the harm falls on a neighbor who never set foot on the defendant's land and never got the benefit the statute contemplates.
And Shoemaker fits a broader pattern in modern Virginia duty law. In RGR, LLC v. Settle, 288 Va. 260 (2014), the Court reaffirmed that a landowner owes a common-law duty of reasonable care not to create hazardous conditions that endanger others beyond the property line. Shoemaker applies that same logic to an activity the landowner permitted rather than a condition the landowner created: when you know bullets may reach an occupied home and you allow the shooting anyway, ordinary care has something to say about it.
What this means for injured people in Virginia
- Neighbors have rights. If dangerous activity on adjoining land — gunfire, explosives, hazardous burning — injures someone in their own home or yard, Shoemaker is now the starting point for the liability analysis.
- "Recreational immunity" is not absolute. A defense built on § 29.1-509 must fit the statute's purpose; courts will not stretch it to cover every recreational harm.
- Knowledge is the key fact. The duty recognized in Shoemaker turns on what the landowner knew: the direction of fire, the sightline to the occupied dwelling, the likelihood of a strike. Early investigation — scene photographs, terrain, witness accounts of prior shooting — is critical.
- Homeowners insurance may apply. Claims like these are typically defended and paid under the landowner's homeowners or farm policy, which matters enormously for actually collecting a judgment.
It is a rare decision that expands landowner accountability in Virginia. Shoemaker is one, and it was written in the hardest possible circumstances — a family that lost a loved one to a bullet that never should have been fired in that direction.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.