by Sarah Park '21
A Connecticut lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting against the maker of the AR-15 rifle that gave Adam Lanza access to weaponry is currently awaiting a court ruling. The ruling is to be determined shortly after the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida which left 17 dead. The court will determine whether gun manufacturers can be held liable for the deaths that occur from mass shootings as a result of their products.
The gun industry has not faced much pressure due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005, which absolved liability of gun manufacturers and dealers.
The plaintiffs have argued for an exception to this law under the claim of negligent entrustment, as the AR-15 provider Remington Co. marketed military weapons to young adults “obsessed with the military” and “uninterested in hunting or target shooting”. They claim that the provider targeted mentally unstable young men, a “high risk population” who are responsible for utilizing guns for mass shootings.
The case was first filed in 2012 and dismissed in 2016, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Connecticut high court. Although negligent entrustment has been used for lawsuits against gun dealers, the case against Remington is the first to include a weapon manufacturer. A number of various groups including emergency room doctors who treated victims of mass shootings, the state attorney general, gun control groups, and school superintendents have voiced support for the families of the victims.
Opponents argue that gun retailers simply cannot be held accountable for the actions that its consumers undertake. They state that Remington Co. did not know and should not be responsible for knowing Lanza, who obtained the weapon from his mother. Lawyers claim that the negligent entrustment cannot be applied unless the seller knew that the buyer was planning on using the weapon to harm others. This knowledge can be difficult to trace between a gun retailer and the purchaser.
However, the plaintiffs have cited a 1977 case as an analogous example of negligent entrustment. In Moning V. Alfono, the Michigan Supreme Court held a company liable for encouraging children to buy high speed slingshots when a child used the slingshots to strike a 12 year old child in the eye. The court ruled that although the manufacturer did not know about the child who used the slingshot to harm another, the manufacturer should have recognized the potential dangers of the product if used by children.
Lawyers argue that the court’s ruling would have limited implications outside of Connecticut. However, a ruling supporting the plaintiff’s argument could spur an influence through symbolism, thereby posing a threat to gun companies and increasing pressure to impose stricter gun control regulations.
Sources
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-court-case-making-gun-makers-anxious-1521192601
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fate-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-gun-maker-could-be-decided-n820776
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fate-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-gun-maker-could-be-decided-n820776
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/nyregion/appeal-offers-hope-for-newtown-families-in-suit-against-gun-companies.html