Court Allows Gun Company to be Sued
Article from Reason by Jacob Sullum.
Today the Connecticut Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the rifle used in the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the company that distributed the gun, and the store that sold it to the perpetrator’s mother. The court agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiffs, a survivor of the attack and relatives of nine people murdered at the school, could not sue under a theory of “negligent entrustment.” But it said they could sue under the theory that Remington, which owns the company that makes the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used by Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing the gun, a variation on the Colt AR-15, in a way that emphasized its “militaristic and assaultive qualities.”
Under CUPTA, people can seek damages for injuries caused by “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis, who in 2016 ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue under CUPTA because they did not have a “consumer or commercial relationship” with the defendant. It also concluded that CUPTA lawsuits are not barred by a federal law that generally protects gun suppliers from civil liability for crimes committed with their products.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which Congress passed in 2005, allows civil actions based on knowing violations of “a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” when the violations were “a proximate cause” of harm. “Once we accept the premise that Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct,” the court said, “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”
The plantiffs cite these examples of “unethical and irresponsible marketing practices”:
Read the entire article at Reason.
Image Credit: By Cory Doctorow (Flickr) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
This judge if he is a real one is nuts!
Hope the manufacturer prevails or else we will lose our 2nd Amendment Rights!
This is what they want because they are afraid of us. And the millions of us that are not afraid of fighting the government.
next it well be cars ,knifes fast food the judge is nuts
thats just crazy
Why do so many people believe that we need to blame someone other than the person responsible ?
So I guess then that the next time that some punk gets drunk, hops into his mustang and runs over someone that the plaintives will be suing Jack Daniels and the Ford motor Company? What company can even afford to stay in business if that happens?
Typical liberal court in a liberal state that has no regard for truth or decency.
Supreme Court won’t allow it.
So I guess that Conn’s allowance of the Marijuana businesses will be sued next? Advertised as pain relief (for all) it is responsible WAY more than the rifle for its consequences. Heck no, they won’t. This ruling is outside the court’s understanding, and just another case of the judiciary making law by DISTORTING law. They just keep pecking away at our rights. Second Article is a “self-defense and preservation of liberty” right. Not a “hunting” right. Anything the left can do to weaken or remove our freedoms and thus CONTROL Citizens is their ultimate aim. Check this judge’s bank account?
Since the murderer stole the gun, how in the heck can the manufacturer be liable?