Lawsuits Against
Gun Manufacturers
Lawsuits
against gun manufacturers have been brought by individuals, states, and cities,
seeking to recoup losses suffered at the hands of gun-wielding criminals.
State and city suits have asked manufacturers to compensate them for monies
spent on the emergency treatment of gunshot victims, and for monies lost because
of the relatively high threat of gun violence in certain locales. It
is important to note that, to date, most state courts have sided with manufacturers.
On August
15, 2001, for example, an Arizona judge
dismissed claims against gun manufacturer Glock
and a gun show promoter.[i]
The suit claimed that both should be held financially responsible for a triple
murder that took place during the robbery of a Pizza Hut restaurant in Tucson in 1999,
in which a Glock-made gun was used.
Similarly, on August
10, 2001, a New
York trial judge dismissed a state-initiated lawsuit
against gun manufacturers and distributors in which the state had claimed
that guns created a public nuisance, and were therefore illegal.[ii]
“The judge concluded that there is no doubt that the unlawful use of guns
is a public nuisance, but stated that the state’s complaint did not allege
sufficient facts to establish the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability
for creating or maintaining the nuisance.”[iii]
About the same time, the New York Court of Appeals held that firearms manufacturers
can not be held liable for injuries allegedly resulting from their marketing
and distribution practices. The court refused to extend “liability to defendants
for their failure to control the conduct of others…” According to the
court, “this judicial resistance to the expansion of duty grows out of practical
concerns both about potentially limitless liability and about the unfairness
of imposing liability for the acts of another.”[iv]
On October
1, 2001, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that cities
do not have the necessary legal basis to sue firearms manufacturers.
Also in 2001, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a manufacturer
of assault pistols whose products had been used in a mass murder, holding
that California state
law protects gun manufacturers from product liability actions (the California law was
repealed, however, by that state’s legislature in September, 2002).
In 2001, the City of New Orleans asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court
that ordered dismissal of the city’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
The Louisiana high
court found that newly-enacted state laws blocked the suit from proceeding.
On October
9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city’s
challenge to the lawsuit’s dismissal. Finally, on April 25, 2001, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals created a handgun exception to the state's
product liability law, affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit stemming from
the accidental shooting death of a 3-year-old boy. Maryland’s highest
court has agreed to hear an appeal in the case.
A significant gun control case came in mid-November 19, 2001,
when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal
of a lawsuit brought by Camden
County, New Jersey.[v]
The suit accused gun manufacturers of creating a “public nuisance” and sought
to force gun makers to repay the county for the costs associated with gun-related
crimes. In the words of the court: “Whatever the precise scope of public
nuisance law in New Jersey may be, no New Jersey court has ever allowed a
public nuisance claim to proceed against manufacturers for lawful products
that are lawfully placed in the stream of commerce.”[vi]
In action typical of that now ongoing in many states, the Ohio
House passed a firearms industry immunity bill on May 16, 2001. The
law, if enacted, would apply to suits brought by individual victims of shootings
and their families, as well as actions brought by Ohio cities
and counties. It includes a provision purporting to make such immunity
apply retroactively to lawsuits already filed. The federal government
is consdiering similar legislation (H.R. 2037 and S. 2268) and, if passed,
gun manufacturers would be protected against most civil suits.
Learn more about lawsuits and gun violence from the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project.