Sandy Hook families renew legal push against gun maker

Sandy Hook families renew legal push against gun maker

Sandy Hook families renew legal push against gun maker

A lawyer for families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting told Connecticut's highest court on Tuesday (local time) that Remington Outdoor Co should be held responsible because its military-themed marketing was created to appeal to young men like killer Adam Lanza.

The plaintiffs argued the law does not protect Remington because it marketed the rifle "not for sport or for target shooting or self-defense" but "for exactly what it was", Koskoff said.

He said there was no way the manufacturer or seller would know the semi-automatic rifle sold to Adam Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, would later be used in the attack or be placed in the hands of someone unfit to use it.

A lower CT court judge agreed with Remington and dismissed the lawsuit in October 2016, citing the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields gun makers in most cases from liability over criminal use of their products.

Families of nine victims who were killed and a teacher who survived the shooting sued.

"That's how negligent entrustment works".

"They marketed the weapon for exactly what it was", Koskoff said in court on Tuesday, adding that Remington even used product placement to get its product in first-person-shooter video games played by Lanza.

The nation is watching the case closely because if the families succeed, and the state Supreme Court allows it to move forward, it could lead to a flood of lawsuits against gunmakers.

At one point Palmer pressed Vogts about whether there are any legitimate uses for the AR-15 other that killing someone, noting that the plaintiffs say it is a "killing machine".

Koskoff said the weapon Lanza "needed for his mission that day was never in doubt". "What we have is the conduct of a corporation that thought it was above the law and still thinks its above the law". There have been 16 Amicus Curiae, or "friend of the court", briefs filed from agencies ranging from the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, headquartered not far from the Sandy Hook school, to a group of 10 physicians, many of whom have treated victims of a mass shooting, who are advocating for the victims' case.

Assault-style weapons were banned in CT after the Sandy Hook shooting. But, Hockley said, while the military takes great care of controlling its weapons, the manufacturers actively market them to unstable people. "This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by PLCAA".

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could not win under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

Timothy D. Lytton, a Georgia State University College of Law professor who wrote a book about the difficulty in suing gun companies, said overcoming the federal law will be hard for the plaintiffs.

The company said it's up to legislators and not juries whether the AR-15 should be sold to the public.

Seven Connecticut Supreme Court justices began hearing arguments on Tuesday morning in an appeal that could have ripple effects in the industry.

Notícias recomendadas

We are pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news.
Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper.
Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.