Glock-A-Roo
New member
Here's some good news to brighten your weekend. Cincinatti's anti-gun lawsuit was dismissed last year, so the city appealed. They just lost the appeal 3-0. This could provide some much-needed precedent against the other anti-gun suits by cities around the country.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2000/08/12/loc_city_gun_suit_shot.html
Saturday, August 12, 2000
City gun suit shot down on appeal
Judges say product dangers 'obvious'
By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The city of Cincinnati lost again Friday in its legal battle
to hold gun makers responsible for gun violence.
An appeals court ruled the city would “open a Pandora's
box” if a lawsuit it filed last year forced gun manufacturers to
pay for damages caused by guns.
The court concluded that suing the manufacturers
because of gun violence makes about as much sense as
suing match companies because of arson.
“Guns are dangerous,” Judge Ralph Winkler wrote in his
majority opinion. “The risks of guns are open and obvious.”
The unanimous decision by the Ohio 1st District Court
of Appeals means city officials now must appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court if they want to keep their law suit alive.
The decision also could be a blow to similar lawsuits
that have been filed against gun makers in nearly 30 cities
nationwide.
“The legal opinions applied in this case should apply to
other jurisdictions,” said James Dorr, an attorney for the
Connecticut-based Sturm & Ruger gun company.
“These cases never had any legal basis.”
Cincinnati's lawsuit contends gun manufacturers owe
the city millions of dollars in expenses and damages.
The city claims gun makers are responsible for the
misuse of firearms and are negligent because they failed to
design weapons with adequate safety devices.
Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman rejected those
arguments last year when he threw out the city's lawsuit. In its
3-0 vote Friday, the appeals court upheld Judge Ruehlman's
decision.
Cincinnati attorney Stanley Chesley, who represents the
city, said he will ask City Council to appeal the ruling to the
Ohio Supreme Court.
He said two of the three appeals court judges, Lee
Hildebrandt and Mark Painter, disagreed with some aspects
of Judge Winkler's majority opinion.
Although both judges voted with the majority, Mr.
Chesley said their concerns give him hope that another
appeal might succeed.
“I'm disappointed, but I'm encouraged as well,” Mr.
Chesley said. “We need to address this with the Supreme
Court.”
Judge Winkler, however, left no doubt about his
opposition to the city's lawsuit. He accused the city of using
a “shotgun approach” that makes broad allegations
unsupported by the evidence.
The judge said the city's suit is fatally flawed because it
does not cite any direct injuries caused by a specific gun
model or manufacturer.
He said the city also failed to show how it directly
suffered any physical damage as a result of gun violence.
“The city ... can prove no harm to itself in the form of
death, physical injury or emotional distress,” Judge Winkler
wrote. “The city makes generic claims against all the
manufacturers in an effort to gloss over the fatal omissions in
its complaint.”
The judge went on to say that gun makers cannot be
blamed if criminals or ordinary citizens misuse lethal
weapons.
“Manufacturers have no duty to give warnings about the
obvious dangers of handguns,” Judge Winkler wrote.
“Were we to decide otherwise, we would open a
Pandora's box. The city could sue the manufacturers of
matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic
accidents, or breweries for drunken driving.”
http://enquirer.com/editions/2000/08/12/loc_city_gun_suit_shot.html
Saturday, August 12, 2000
City gun suit shot down on appeal
Judges say product dangers 'obvious'
By Dan Horn
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The city of Cincinnati lost again Friday in its legal battle
to hold gun makers responsible for gun violence.
An appeals court ruled the city would “open a Pandora's
box” if a lawsuit it filed last year forced gun manufacturers to
pay for damages caused by guns.
The court concluded that suing the manufacturers
because of gun violence makes about as much sense as
suing match companies because of arson.
“Guns are dangerous,” Judge Ralph Winkler wrote in his
majority opinion. “The risks of guns are open and obvious.”
The unanimous decision by the Ohio 1st District Court
of Appeals means city officials now must appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court if they want to keep their law suit alive.
The decision also could be a blow to similar lawsuits
that have been filed against gun makers in nearly 30 cities
nationwide.
“The legal opinions applied in this case should apply to
other jurisdictions,” said James Dorr, an attorney for the
Connecticut-based Sturm & Ruger gun company.
“These cases never had any legal basis.”
Cincinnati's lawsuit contends gun manufacturers owe
the city millions of dollars in expenses and damages.
The city claims gun makers are responsible for the
misuse of firearms and are negligent because they failed to
design weapons with adequate safety devices.
Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman rejected those
arguments last year when he threw out the city's lawsuit. In its
3-0 vote Friday, the appeals court upheld Judge Ruehlman's
decision.
Cincinnati attorney Stanley Chesley, who represents the
city, said he will ask City Council to appeal the ruling to the
Ohio Supreme Court.
He said two of the three appeals court judges, Lee
Hildebrandt and Mark Painter, disagreed with some aspects
of Judge Winkler's majority opinion.
Although both judges voted with the majority, Mr.
Chesley said their concerns give him hope that another
appeal might succeed.
“I'm disappointed, but I'm encouraged as well,” Mr.
Chesley said. “We need to address this with the Supreme
Court.”
Judge Winkler, however, left no doubt about his
opposition to the city's lawsuit. He accused the city of using
a “shotgun approach” that makes broad allegations
unsupported by the evidence.
The judge said the city's suit is fatally flawed because it
does not cite any direct injuries caused by a specific gun
model or manufacturer.
He said the city also failed to show how it directly
suffered any physical damage as a result of gun violence.
“The city ... can prove no harm to itself in the form of
death, physical injury or emotional distress,” Judge Winkler
wrote. “The city makes generic claims against all the
manufacturers in an effort to gloss over the fatal omissions in
its complaint.”
The judge went on to say that gun makers cannot be
blamed if criminals or ordinary citizens misuse lethal
weapons.
“Manufacturers have no duty to give warnings about the
obvious dangers of handguns,” Judge Winkler wrote.
“Were we to decide otherwise, we would open a
Pandora's box. The city could sue the manufacturers of
matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic
accidents, or breweries for drunken driving.”
