Posted on 05/24/2018 9:28:02 AM PDT by Simon Green
The families of two victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting on Wednesday sued the maker and seller of the weapon used in the rampage, claiming they should be held partially responsible for what Nikolas Cruz did with it.
The parents of Jaime Guttenberg and Alex Schachter want a judge to clear the way for them to claim damages against American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, and Sunrise Tactical Supply. The Coral Springs store is where Cruz purchased the AR-15-style weapon used in the Feb. 14 shooting spree.
Fred and Jennifer Guttenberg, and Max Schachter “seek to hold defendants legally responsible for their complicity in the entirely foreseeable, deadly use of the assault-style weapons that they place on the market,” according to the lawsuit, filed in Broward Circuit
Before the lawsuit can go forward, their attorneys said, judges have to clarify that gun manufacturers and sellers can be sued by victims.
“A confusingly written Florida statute stands in the way,” the attorneys wrote. “If the defendants claim that [the law] entitles them to immunity from such claims, and the courts agree,” the victims will be forced to pay the gun maker’s and seller’s legal fees instead of recovering damages.
The 2001 law, Florida Statute 790.331, explicitly prohibits state, county and city government agencies from suing businesses over the legal manufacture and sale of weapons that are later used unlawfully. The law is silent on whether victims can sue on those grounds.
The same law allows governments and victims to sue over defects in the weapons, but “the potential of a firearm or ammunition to cause serious injury, damage, or death as a result of normal function does not constitute a defective condition of the product.”
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Attorneys who encouraged this should lose their law licenses
Short answer, they will lose. This has been tried many times with all sorts of companies. They always fail on proximate cause as well as cause in fact. Selling legal goods does not give rise to liability when they are misused by a third party.
Because they sent them to their deaths in a public school shooting gallery that was set up by the school administration, the local sheriff's department, and the FBI.
Ok? So should they sue other companies for chemicals used in bombs? How about the truck companies for massacres in France, Germany, UK?
This is absurd.
File a countersuit for extortion and bankrupt these traitors.
When someone is killed by a car, do you sue the car manufacturer or the dealership that sold the car? When someone is stabbed do you sue the cutlery company, the maker of the knife? It is so outlandish that a judge would allow such a suit.
LOL, Fred! And I ‘m gonna sue the Cheetoes manufacturer! Let’s get together and make a killing, so to speak. :)
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.