Newtown lawsuit dismissed

Aguila Blanca said:
The attorney(s) for the plaintiff should (IMHO) be sanctioned. It looks to me like the case should never have gotten out of the starting gate.

(B) Negligent entrustment.--As used in subparagraph
(A)(ii), the term ``negligent entrustment'' means ....
Click to expand...
The Sandy Hook shooting did result in putting the gun shop from whom the AR-15 was bought out of business, but the salient point relative to the lawsuit is that the AR-15 was not sold to the shooter, it was sold to his mother. Since, referring to the definition above, the firearm was not "supplied to" a person who was likely to use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person (i.e. the mother -- the actual purchaser) or others, there was no basis on which to bring the suit.

Secondly, Remington wasn't the seller .....
Click to expand...

The plaintiff is allowed to argue what the statute means and how it should be applied under the facts of the specific case. That's what the motion to strike was really all about.

So the plaintiffs urged their application of the PLCAA exception in the context of the facts of the case, and the defendants made their arguments. The judge did her bit -- and found the plaintiffs' arguments unconvincing. So she dismissed the complaint.

The arguments as well as Judge Bellis' reasons for her decision are set out at length in the decision, and I'm not going to repeat everything here. So if you're interested, please read her decision paying particular attention to her discussion on pages 6 -- 36. Although lengthy, that part of the decision can serve as a useful overview of the law of negligent entrustment generally as well as some insight into the legislative history of the PLCAA.
 
The scary thing is with the bill regarding citizens suing Saudi Arabia for damages, companies that are legal entities might be next in line if it passes.​

Alas, all we can really do is mail our Senators and Representatives about the issues that come up if an LLC is legally responsible for individuals acting on their own terms using their products. (Whether it be a gun or extremism.)​

Watch there be warnings about AR-15s and pump guns being potentially fatal if people are downrange in a few years, on the gun's receiver.
 
Gunnut17 said:
The scary thing is with the bill regarding citizens suing Saudi Arabia for damages, companies that are legal entities might be next in line if it passes....
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

First, the Saudi bill has passed and will probably be vetoed.

Second, it's very narrow. It applies only to suit for damages from 9/11.

Third, it's probably meaningless because of the intricacies of international law.

Fourth, tort law relating to the liabilities of companies for damages is quite mature and primarily a state law issue. There are well known principles under which a company is not liable, and there are some well understood exceptions.

So let's put away the tinfoil hats.
 
tort law relating to the liabilities of companies for damages is quite mature and primarily a state law issue. There are well known principles under which a company is not liable, and there are some well understood exceptions.
Click to expand...

Maybe a stupid question as I'm pretty adept with those, but does Judge Bellis' decision in this case help to set a precedence in regard to the ludicrous claims by the anti-gunners that firearm manufacturers are somehow exempt from liability regarding the use of their products and their push to change that?
 
turkeestalker said:
Maybe a stupid question as I'm pretty adept with those, but does Judge Bellis' decision in this case help to set a precedence in regard to the ludicrous claims by the anti-gunners that firearm manufacturers are somehow exempt from liability regarding the use of their products and their push to change that?
Click to expand...
Judge Bellis is a judge in Connecticut Superior Court, which is the first level. The case was originally filed in state court, kicked over the federal court, and then bounced back to Connecticut state court. So my understanding is that it has no impact (or very minor impact) outside of Connecticut and, since it's not an appellate-level decision, it doesn't establish any precedent.
 
turkeestalker said:
...the ludicrous claims by the anti-gunners that firearm manufacturers are somehow exempt from liability regarding the use of their products....
Click to expand...
And the fact is that firearms manufacturers are to a large extent not liable for damages caused by the use of their products -- but so are makers of cars, alcoholic beverages, tools, gardening equipment, machinery, pesticides, and pretty much anything else. And for every sort of maker of every sort of thing there are exceptions, i. e., circumstances under which a maker of something could be held liable for damages caused by the use of its product.

In essence, firearms manufacturers are being treated no differently than manufacturers of pretty much anything else. The federal law applied by Judge Bellis to dismiss the suit against Remington, et al, essentially effectuates in a statute the basic, pre-existing principle of enterprise liability for the use of products.
 
As I recall, the PLCA law was passed during the Clinton administration because he and Cuomo were trying to put gun manufacturers out of business by draining them of funds by endless suits that are expensive to defend. IIRC
 
The lawsuits from big city mayors, suing gun makers, because their cities had problems with "gun violence" was BS from the start, not an ethical thing to do, but technically legal, and supported by the Clinton administration.

it was their "stick" to force gunmakers to accept the deal the Clintons were offering, the one that placed numerous restrictions on sales (even including children could not be present in the store if guns were sold, etc), required locks built into guns, and many other things.

IF gunmakers took the deal, they would be held immune from the big city mayor's lawsuits. That was what the Clinton's offered. Only ONE gunmaker took the deal, the rest all said "no" in various ways. S&W took the deal, because at the time, they were owned by a BRITISH holding company, and those folks were fine with the Clinton's deal, unlike the rest of us here, in the US.

The result of that decision was lots of people saw S&W as "selling out" to the Clintons and gun control. S&W sales dropped. People boycotted the company. Their stock tanked, and the Brits wound up selling S&W for a LOSS.

Congress passed the PLCA law to prevent the threat of frivolous legal action being used to coerce gunmakers again. Gunmakers are liable if they sell a defective product, just the same way every other manufacturer is.

What they are protected from, by the law, is being sued because someone misuses their product.

If a drunk driver runs down your Granny with his Chevy, GM is NOT liable. IF a sober driver runs down your Granny with his Chevy, because the brakes didn't work, and the brakes didn't work because GM didn't install them right at the factory, THEN GM has liability.

Criminal misuse of a firearm is just that, criminal. Holding anyone other than the criminal themselves responsible is neither ethical, nor just. It is, in fact, a lie.
 
I should have worded that better.
My point is exactly what you've all reiterated, it's ludicrous in my opinion for the anti-gun crowd to imply that gun manufacturers should be somehow held responsible for the misuse or criminal use of their products.
Pity that Judge Bellis' ruling doesn't set some precedent on a larger scale.
 
Pity that Judge Bellis' ruling doesn't set some precedent on a larger scale.
Click to expand...
She might, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal.

But it's still a case in the Connecticut state court system, so it can't set national (or even district) precedent.
 
I'm going to take the liberty of cut-and-pasting something I wrote for another forum, which was largely ignorant of the PLCAA beyond the current political claims about it.

The PLCAA does not provide any sort of unique immunity to the gun industry. Those who manufacture, market, or distribute firearms can still be sued for product liability due to defects, negligent entrustment, or other illegal acts.

So why even have the law? Good question! In the 1990's, the mayors of Chicago and Bridgeport decided to start suing gun manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their products. The ball got rolling, and the Clinton administration latched on to the strategy.

It came to a head in an infamous agreement between the administration and Smith & Wesson. S&W was promised immunity if they would consent to a number of onerous restrictions on their manufacturing and business practices. Many gun owners refuse to do business with the company to this day over that.

The agreement was to be overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, of all agencies. Why HUD? Because the director at the time was one Andrew Cuomo, who publicly stated that the lawsuits would be a way to destroy the gun industry. He called it "death by a thousand cuts."

(Politicians were a bit more bold and careless with the rhetoric back then.)

With the exception of S&W, everyone else in the industry lawyered up and swore to fight the lawsuits. A lawsuit (McCarthy v. Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., 916 F.Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)) was brought against the Olin corporation regarding the use of Black Talon ammunition in the Long Island Railroad shooting. Plaintiffs argued that Olin was negligent in designing and marketing an especially lethal bullet, and that the bullets were also defective. The court found that the product performed as intended, even if that usage was indeed grim, and the case was dismissed.

This set things back a bit, but the idea the gun industry could be somehow singled out and held to a unique standard of liability was troubling. The PLCAA was the reaction to that.

The bill does not create any new or special legal principles; it simply clarifies existing law as it applies to a specific situation. Anyone claiming that it grants blanket immunity to the gun industry is either mistaken, or in the case of experienced politicians, lying.
 
According to this, the Plaintiffs are going to appeal immediately.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Judge-tosses-Sandy-Hook-gun-manufacturer-awsuit-9971983.php


While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight,” said their lawyer, Joshua Koskoff. “We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said it was time to overturn a 2005 federal law that protects the gun industry from liability when guns are used in a crime.
Click to expand...

Any word on how that's going or even if it is going?
 
It looks like they're still pushing the negligent entrustment angle. Koskoff (who is a malpractice lawyer, BTW) has cited the Badger Guns case as a parallel.

The difference is that Badger Guns knowingly broke laws by intentionally selling guns to disqualified persons. Koskoff is trying to claim that Remington's very marketing of "military" weapons is the same sort of misconduct.

Honestly, I have no idea how he's conflating the two, but he's wasting his clients' money, the court's time, and the state's money to score political points.

Legal eagles: what sort of sanctions, if any, can be brought against him for this sort of behavior?
 
Tom Servo said:
. . . . Legal eagles: what sort of sanctions, if any, can be brought against him for this sort of behavior?
Click to expand...
If there's a good-faith basis for his argument to extend the law to cover Remington's marketing & he abides by the ethical rules in conducting the lawsuit, quite likely none.

If there's no such basis, and he's just bilking the clients for money, there are a couple of routes this could take:

1) A lawsuit by his clients for malpractice (or maybe even fraud), which he's probably well-prepared to defend, if he's a malpractice lawyer.
2) A complaint to the state ethics commission, which can probably fine him, force him to return all of the fees that he's collected and begin disbarment proceedings, where appropriate.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
Spats M said:
1) A lawsuit by his clients for malpractice (or maybe even fraud), which he's probably well-prepared to defend, if he's a malpractice lawyer.
2) A complaint to the state ethics commission, which can probably fine him, force him to return all of the fees that he's collected and begin disbarment proceedings, where appropriate.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

If it's like my state, there are also Rule 11 sanctions, just as in federal court.

Tom, when an attorney signs a pleading, he is certifying to the court that there is a good ground to support it, or the "good-faith basis for his argument to extend the law" Spats notes. That doesn't mean that just because a party loses that its counsel lacked a good faith basis. It doesn't even mean that if he doesn't have precedent on his side, he lacks a good faith basis. He just has to have an argument that isn't baseless. If he files without that basis, the opposing party may be owed its fees in the suit.

In my experience, courts don't like to impose sanctions. They compete against the value of open access to the courts, the idea that we resolve our differences peacefully before a court.

Edit - I also see that Judge Bellis is a state court judge. Is she elected? Dismissing a suit brought by victim families is one thing, but sanctioning them may be a bridge too far for someone looking to be re-elected.
 
Last edited:
zuik,
Yes, Arkansas also has Rule 11. I don't have time to check the CT rules right now, but it may also have something similar. Thank you for correcting that oversight.
 
Tom Servo said:
Koskoff is trying to claim that Remington's very marketing of "military" weapons is the same sort of misconduct.

Honestly, I have no idea how he's conflating the two, but he's wasting his clients' money, the court's time, and the state's money to score political points.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is about "Political Points".

I think This is about repealing the PLCAA altogether and get it repealed through the courts and not through Congress.

All of these appeals etc. are going to take time, lots of time.

Within a few short months Hillary will become President, she will have the opportunity to nominate two (2) Supreme Court Justices right off the bat. Scalia's position and Clarence Thomas's, as he said he will retire after the election.

Once the SC goes 3-6 this case and maybe a few others like Peruta will end up at the SC's door, when that happens it is my opinion, the entire PLCAA law will be ruled unconstitutional and they will rule against Remington and the others.
 
Spats, it isn't really a correction, but a guess that CT has something like that.

Spats M said:
zuik,
Yes, Arkansas also has Rule 11. I don't have time to check the CT rules right now,...
Click to expand...

I have the time, but I couldn't find the answer instantly, and I am uneasy about offering an opinion on the procedure of a state to which I am not admitted. My opinion here is a WAG about how people and courts work.

I found a link to a PDF that has a lot of the words with which we are familiar.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/frivolous_suits.pdf

In my state, a lot of the vexatious litigator cases are about laymen with nothing to lose who are prohibited from filing further cases.

In any event, my response to Tom would be that though sanctions exist they are applied sparingly, and it is hard for me to see an elected judge awarding sanctions against victims' families or estates.
 
zukiphile said:
I have the time, but I couldn't find the answer instantly, and I am uneasy about offering an opinion on the procedure of a state to which I am not admitted. My opinion here is a WAG about how people and courts work.
Click to expand...
While I share your uneasiness about offering opinions about matters in states to which I am not admitted, I'm good with sharing the text of a rule that I found:
(a) Every pleading and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his or her pleadings and other papers. The name of the attorney or party who signs such document shall be legibly typed or printed beneath the signature.

(b) The signing of any pleading, motion, objection or request shall constitute a certificate that the signer has read such document, that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it, that it is not interposed for delay, and that the signer has complied with the requirements of Section 4-7 regarding personal identifying information. Each pleading and every other court-filed document signed by an attorney or party shall set forth the signer's telephone number and mailing address.

CT R SUPER CT GEN § 4-2
Click to expand...
I don't know what sanctions are available for violation of this rule, but this looks like the analog to our Rule 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top