Sandy Hook families can sue gunmaker Remington: Connecticut court




  • In US
  • 2019-03-14 18:18:04Z
  • By By Tina Bellon
FILE PHOTO: AR-15 rifles are displayed for sale at the Guntoberfest gun show in Oaks, Pennsylvania
FILE PHOTO: AR-15 rifles are displayed for sale at the Guntoberfest gun show in Oaks, Pennsylvania  

By Tina Bellon

(Reuters) - The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday allowed families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of school children to sue Remington Outdoor Co Inc in a setback to gun makers, which until now have been largely shielded from liability.

The families of nine of the victims and one survivor have said the manufacturer, along with a gun wholesaler and local retailer, are partially responsible for the carnage at the Newtown, Connecticut, school because they marketed the weapon based on its militaristic appeal.

Adam Lanza, 20, used a Remington AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, a semi-automatic civilian version of the U.S. military's M-16, to kill 20 children aged 6 and 7, as well as six adult staff members, at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. He then killed himself.

Remington on Thursday did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry's trade association, said it was reviewing the decision and did not have an immediate comment.

Josh Koskoff, one of the lawyers for the victims' families, said in a statement the families were grateful for the court's rejection of the gun industry's bid for complete immunity.

"The families' goal has always been to shed light on Remington's calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans' safety. Today's decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal," Koskoff said.

Legal experts have said any appeal of the ruling by the gunmaker would likely be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it could face steep legal hurdles.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, has provided the U.S. firearms industry an almost impenetrable defense against lawsuits by victims of mass shootings and gun violence, broadly shielding Remington and others such as American Outdoor Brands Corp, Sturm Ruger & Co and Vista Outdoor Inc from liability stemming from such incidents.

The families had tried to advance the case on a relatively novel argument in gun litigation based on the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, an argument historically used when someone lends a car to a high-risk driver who then causes an accident.

But the narrowly divided Supreme Court judges rejected that theory in a 4-3 ruling, instead saying the families could bring their claims under a different exemption to the 2005 federal shield law, basing it on a Connecticut consumer protection statute.

The court said PLCAA did not bar wrongful marketing claims and unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes and that plaintiffs could pursue those claims under state law.

Three dissenting judges rejected that finding, saying the federal gunmaker shield law did not include such exceptions.

The tragedy led then-President Barack Obama to urge federal gun control legislation, but proposals died on Capitol Hill. Since Sandy Hook and subsequent school shootings, most federal efforts at gun control or gun rights expansion have faded and the bulk of firearms legislation has been in state legislatures across the country.


(Reporting by Tina Bellon; Editing by Dan Grebler)

COMMENTS

More Related News

NRA, gun rights groups using New York City rules to seek expansion of Second Amendment in Supreme Court
NRA, gun rights groups using New York City rules to seek expansion of Second Amendment in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has refused for nearly a decade to jump back into the gun rights debate, declining at least eight opportunities in recent years.

Mississippi judge who blocked 15-week abortion ban hears arguments on fetal heartbeat law
Mississippi judge who blocked 15-week abortion ban hears arguments on fetal heartbeat law

Mississippi's fetal heartbeat law which bans abortions after approximately six weeks could be blocked or upheld by Judge Carlton Reeves.

Hundreds gather at U.S. Supreme Court to protest state abortion bans as step backward
Hundreds gather at U.S. Supreme Court to protest state abortion bans as step backward

Many of the restrictions are intended to draw legal challenges, which religious conservatives hope will lead the nation's top court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. "We are not going to allow them to move our country backward," U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the two dozen Democrats running for president, told the crowd through a megaphone. The rally is one of scores scheduled for Tuesday around the country by the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights group.

U.S. Supreme Court takes no action in Indiana abortion cases
U.S. Supreme Court takes no action in Indiana abortion cases

Neither Indiana case was on the list of appeals on which the court acted on Monday morning. If the nine-justice court takes up either case, it would give the conservative majority an opportunity to chip away at the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a right under the U.S. Constitution for women to terminate pregnancies. One of the Indiana laws requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated and bans abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus.

U.S. Supreme Court sides with Native American elk hunter
U.S. Supreme Court sides with Native American elk hunter
  • US
  • 2019-05-20 16:03:28Z

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Native American elk hunter, citing an 1868 treaty between his tribe and the U.S. government as it revived his legal challenge to a conviction for hunting out of season in Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. It found that the treaty, which gave tribe members hunting rights on "unoccupied" lands, is still in force even though it was signed before Wyoming became a U.S. state in 1890. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a record of backing tribal rights, sided with the court's four liberals, with the other four conservative justices in dissent.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.