Cincinnati's Gun Lawsuit Thrown Out!

N

nralife

New member
Cincinnati's Gun Lawsuit Dismissed

By JOHN NOLAN Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI (AP) -- A state judge today dismissed the city's lawsuit against gun manufacturers, saying it was vague and unsupported by legal precedent.

Several other cities across the country also have sued the firearms industry. Today's action was the first dismissal of such a suit, a lawyer for gun manufacturers said.

Jim Dorr, a Chicago lawyer for gun makers Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. of Southport, Conn., and Smith & Wesson Corp. of Springfield, Mass., said he hopes to use the ruling by Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman in seeking the dismissal of 17 similar lawsuits representing 27 city or county governments.

``These lawsuits filed by the cities have been, in our opinion, nothing but smoke and mirrors with no legal foundation to them,'' Dorr said.

Cincinnati had sued the manufacturers, a distributor and three trade associations. The suit demanded reimbursement for the costs of providing police, emergency, court and prison services in connection with shootings in the city, including suicides and accidental shootings as well as homicides.

The city also sought damages for alleged reduction of property values and loss of tax revenues, plus court orders that would force the defendants to change the way they design, distribute and advertise their products nationally.

Only the Legislature, not the courts, has the authority to impose that type of regulation, the judge ruled. Ruehlman rejected other claims by Cincinnati as vague or not supported by laws or precedent in court cases.

Stanley M. Chesley, Cincinnati's lawyer, said he expects to appeal. The judge's ruling was premature because the city had not been allowed to review documents from the defendants, Chesley said.

AP-NY-10-07-99 1145EDT
Copyright © Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broad

Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
 
C I N C I N N A T I P O S T


Judge tosses out city's gun suit
By Kimball Perry, Post staff reporter


Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled today that the city of Cincinnati isn't entitled to recover damages from gun manufacturers, distributors and trade associations for gun-related violence and its resulting costs. He said that people - not guns - should be held responsible for shootings, and dismissed the lawsuit.

''Here, the nuisance is the criminal or reckless misuse of firearms by third parties who are beyond control of (gun makers and distributors). Because (gun makers and distributors) have no ability to control the misconduct of these third parties, nuisance does not apply...'' Judge Ruehlman wrote in his order to be filed this morning.

Cincinnati was one of 26 cities to make claims that the gun makers, distributors and trade associations should pay for some of the costs of shootings - including providing police, court, prison, emergency and other services.

Cincinnati also claimed those organizations should:

Pay for the lessened property values and loss of taxpayer revenue caused by guns and crimes involving guns;

Pay punitive damages as a result of those crimes, and;

Be forced to change gun designs, distribution and advertising policies across the country.

Ruehlman heard arguments from both sides during a Sept. 27 hearing.

In his written order, Ruehlman says the city's demands were improper.

''(T)he City's request that this Court abate or enjoin the defendant's lawful sale and distribution of their products outside the City of Cincinnati exceeds the scope of municipal powers and, to the extent it asks this Court to regulate commercial conduct lawful in other states, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,'' Ruehlman wrote.

Ruehlman criticized the city's complaint because it doesn't provide specific liability claims. Instead, it ''aggregates anonymous claims with no specificity whatsoever.''

He also wrote the city was unable to recover economic loss unless it also was entitled to be compensated for ''harm'' under the 1988 Ohio Product Liability Act.

''No such 'harm' (i.e. death, physical injury or damage to property) to the City is claimed here,'' Ruehlman wrote.

The city's claim that the gun makers and distributors were liable because they don't warn of potential danger from guns was unfounded, the judge said.

''The Court finds as a matter of law that the risks associated with the use of a firearm are open and obvious and matters of common knowledge,'' Ruehlman said.

Ruehlman said it was improper to ask him to override Ohio law.

''In view of this Court, the City's complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature, something which this Court is neither inclined nor empowered to do,'' Ruehlman wrote.

The five Democratic members of Cincinnati City Council had voted to file the suit.

They sought unspecified money damages for violence and expenses arising from handgun use, requiring safety locks on all guns, tighter control on distribution to avoid illegal sales, mandating ''drop tests'' on guns to ensure locks prevent accidental discharge, and to stop manufacturing guns with fingerprint-resistant material.

Publication date: 10-07-99
Lottery Numbers
 
Sorry for the triple post, but good news just gets me PUMPED!

NRA NEWS RELEASE!!!

Lawsuit Against Firearm Industry Thrown Out of Ohio Court


NRA hails dismissal "with prejudice" as first of many proving lack of
merit of suits brought by greedy lawyers and scapegoating mayors


(WASHINGTON, DC) -- Municipal lawsuits that attempt to hold lawful,
legitimate manufacturers liable for criminal misuse of their products have
no legal merit. That is the message of today's decision by an Ohio state
judge in dismissing with prejudice the suit filed by Cincinnati -- the
first such lawsuit to reach court disposition.

"This is a major victory for those who believe, as NRA members believe,
that we must hold criminals accountable for their crimes," said James J.
Baker, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "And
this dismissal is a major blow for the greedy attorneys seeking enormous
contingency fees and for the mayors seeking scapegoats to blame for their
own failure to enforce current laws and prosecute violent criminals. We
are confident that other cities that have filed such reckless lawsuits
will soon hear the same message."

Baker noted that most Americans oppose these types of lawsuits. "In poll
after poll, the vast majority of Americans believe these suits are wrong,"
Baker said. "The very notion of trying to hold a third party that operates
in total compliance with the law responsible for the deviant, criminal
actions of another is a notion that flies in the face of common sense and
our system of American jurisprudence."

The decision to dismiss the case "with prejudice" means the City of
Cincinnati cannot attempt to amend and refile the suit. The defendants
include Sturm Ruger & Co., Beretta Corp. U.S.A., and Colt's
Manufacturing Co.

"I commend Judge Ruehlman for understanding the Constitutional importance
of the separation of powers, and for clearly stating that policy issues
are reserved to the legislature," Baker said. The opinion states that,
"the City's complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute
its judgement for that of the legislature ... only the legislature has the
power to engage in the type of regulation that is being sought by the City
here. Moreover, the City's request ... exceeds the scope of its municipal
powers and ... violates the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution."

During the past year, the NRA has successfully worked to enact legislation
in thirteen states to prohibit municipalities from filing such frivolous
lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. Included are Georgia and
Louisiana, states in which such suits had been filed. Baker said NRA would
continue that legislative effort next year, an effort that is drawing
greater support as it has become more evident that the suits lack merit.


For more information, see "Ju
nk Lawsuits" Against Gun Makers.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Having difficulty finding ILA-related info?
Try our FAQ Sheet http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/grassroots/19990813-GeneralInfo-015.html

NRAILA.org is maintained for the NRA by http://www.mainstream.net
Mainstream Electronic Information Services
Homepage established 1994 by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030

-
 
Rich-

After making the Rosie post, I thought I had better make sure that I "document" this one. *grin*

You can also hear the latest about how the lawsuit was thrown out on NRA LIVE at...

http://www.nralive.com/frameset.html


Thanks,
Joe

[This message has been edited by nralife (edited October 07, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top