Appeals court weighing legalities of lawsuits against gunmakers


PDA






Desertdog
June 11, 2004, 01:41 AM
Appeals court weighing legalities of lawsuits against gunmakers

http://firearmnews.com/page2.asp?id=5700
Posted 6/10/2004 from Miami.com

"A state appeals court has begun weighing the legalities of the city's lawsuit seeking reimbursement from the gun industry for costs associated with firearms-related injuries.

Attorneys for gunmakers, their opponents and the city of St. Louis argued the matter Wednesday before a three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals panel.

The appeal follows a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of a 1999 lawsuit the city of St. Louis brought against gunmakers, distributors and related trade groups seeking compensation for gun-related injuries. Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brien ruled such lawsuits would open 'a floodgate to additional litigation,' and that 'issues of both logic and fairness' favored throwing out the case.
On Wednesday, Jonathan Lowy - senior attorney with the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence - urged the three-judge appellate panel to reinstate the city's suit against 32 defendants.

Lowy argued that gunmakers should be subject to lawsuits for the social costs of violence because their sales practices ease the flow of some weapons to dealers and criminals.

Lawrence Greenwald, a Baltimore lawyer representing gunmaker Beretta USA Corp., countered that 'the fundamental issue which cuts through this entire case is: Should the city, which is not a person who got shot, collect from gunmakers, who didn't do the shooting?'"

You can read the complete story at:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8890162.htm?1c
Registration required

If you enjoyed reading about "Appeals court weighing legalities of lawsuits against gunmakers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wildalaska
June 11, 2004, 02:01 AM
Should the city, which is not a person who got shot, collect from gunmakers, who didn't do the shooting?'"

Awesome

WildwishidathoughtofthatAlaska

Old Fuff
June 11, 2004, 10:48 AM
>> Lowy argued that gunmakers should be subject to lawsuits for the social costs of violence because their sales practices ease the flow of some weapons to dealers and criminals. <<

Why the man is absolutely right! I can see his logic.

We should also sue carmakers to recover the “social costs” caused by their sales practices that allow intoxicated individuals to obtain and drive their products.

Then there are the pharmaceutical companies that sell medicine in bottles that do nothing to prevent people from taking intentional or unintentional overdoses.

I am sure that Mr. Lowy is looking forward to a bright and financially rewarding future.

Zach S
June 11, 2004, 02:59 PM
A state appeals court has begun weighing the legalities of the city's lawsuit seeking reimbursement from the automotive industry for costs associated with automobile-related injuries.

Attorneys for carmakers, their opponents and the city of St. Louis argued the matter Wednesday before a three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals panel.

The appeal follows a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of a 1999 lawsuit the city of St. Louis brought against carmakers, distributors and related trade groups seeking compensation for car-related injuries. Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brian ruled such lawsuits would open 'a floodgate to additional litigation,' and that 'issues of both logic and fairness' favored throwing out the case.
On Wednesday, Jonathan Lowry - senior attorney with the Washington-based Bradly Center to Prevent Road Rage - urged the three-judge appellate panel to reinstate the city's suit against 32 defendants.

Lowry argued that carmakers should be subject to lawsuits for the social costs of accidents and violence because their sales practices ease the flow of some high-powered sports cars and overgrown SUV's to idiots and criminals.

Larry Greenweld, a Baltimore lawyer representing a Honduh, countered that "the fundamental issue which cuts through this entire case is: Should the city, which is not a person who got ran over, collect from carmakers, who didn't do the driving?"

The above story is fiction. Any similarities with any other news story, as well as the name(s) of companies/organazations, and any person living, deceased, or yet to be born is purely a coincidence...

Standing Wolf
June 11, 2004, 09:17 PM
Should the city, which is not a person who got shot, collect from gunmakers, who didn't do the shooting?

Courts are supposed to make sense of anything that obvious?

Deavis
June 11, 2004, 10:33 PM
Zach, you beat me to it! It is amazing what a single word substitution can do for you. I don't know why people are acting like this will open the floodgates. They are already 1/2 way open, remember how the governments shook down the tobacco industry when they needed money? Same thing here.

7.62FullMetalJacket
June 11, 2004, 11:07 PM
"A state appeals court has begun weighing the legalities of the city's lawsuit seeking reimbursement from the hammer industry for costs associated with construction-related injuries.

Attorneys for tool makers, their opponents and the city of St. Louis argued the matter Wednesday before a three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals panel.

The appeal follows a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of a 1999 lawsuit the city of St. Louis brought against tool makers, distributors and related trade groups seeking compensation for hammer-related injuries. Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brien ruled such lawsuits would open 'a floodgate to additional litigation,' and that 'issues of both logic and fairness' favored throwing out the case.

On Wednesday, Jonathan Lowy - senior attorney with the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Hammer Violence - urged the three-judge appellate panel to reinstate the city's suit against 32 defendants.

Lowy argued that tool makers should be subject to lawsuits for the social costs of violence because their sales practices ease the flow of some tools to dealers and criminals.

Lawrence Greenwald, a Baltimore lawyer representing tool maker Estwing USA Corp., countered that 'the fundamental issue which cuts through this entire case is: Should the city, which is not a person who got hammered, collect from tool makers, who didn't do the hammering?'"

**********************

Hammer control: It's for the children :neener:

Should the city, which is not a person who got shot, collect from gunmakers, who didn't do the shooting?

And that is priceless

txgho1911
June 12, 2004, 01:52 PM
Thank you guys

I needed to laugh today.

Breeders and petshops are being sued for animal related injuries.
Detroit MHS will not place for odoption pitbull terrier dogs due to the chances of them being related to the continued dog fighting industry. Thousands of these alleged fighter breed dogs are youthanized a year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Appeals court weighing legalities of lawsuits against gunmakers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!