Posted on 09/08/2004 7:37:36 PM PDT by Pharmboy
SEATTLE (AP) - The manufacturer and dealer of the rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings have agreed to pay $2.5 million in a settlement with victims' families, a lawyer said Wednesday night. The settlement with Bushmaster marks the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay damages for negligent distribution of weapons, said Jon Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He also said the settlement with Bull's Eye Shooter Supply is the largest against a gun dealer.
"These settlements send a loud and clear message that the gun industry cannot turn a blind eye to how criminals get their guns," said Lowy, who helped argue the case.
Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine, agreed to pay $550,000 to eight victims of the sniper shootings. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma agreed to pay $2 million.
Defense lawyers did not immediately return calls for comment.
A judge will determine how to divide the settlement among two people who were injured in the shootings and the families of six people who were killed.
John Allen Muhammad, 43, was convicted and sentenced to death for murder in one of the 10 fatal shootings in October 2002 in the Washington, D.C.-area. His co-conspirator, 19-year-old Lee Boyd Malvo, was tried separately, convicted of murder in a different death and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
AP-ES-09-08-04 2210EDT
So was that the basis of the settlement? I mean the manufacturer was only liable because they sold to a dealer that had poor security for their weapons? So if a gun maker only sells to dealers that meet some sort of screening for safety they would not be liable?
You can read a reply in # 40 that sums it up, but absent the government taking over the responsibility like they have, then Bushmaster should take ordinary care to oversee their dealers and if they don't then it is not unreasonable to hold them partially liable. I have shopped at the old Bullseye and they didn't take what I would consider ordinary care to prevent theft.
Just trying to figure out on what basis they had to settle. Would it be like a tobacco co. being liable for selling its cigs to a store that had a poor system for restricting minors from making purchases?
It would be hard to quantify any harm caused by a store selling cigarettes to minors so I don't see a direct link that could lead to liability. With government defining and supposedly enforcing the rules on selling to minors I don't see any tobacco company liability.
I was trying to make a comparison to a legal product that can cause harm if a store is negligent -
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.