Carl N. Brown
Member
I have yet to notice an article on this at Volokh Conspiracy ("Mostly law professors ...") helmed by Eugene Volokh, UCLA, who specializes in First and Second Amendment issues.
I have noted an article by a columnist Jacob Sullum, "Lawsuit Against Suppliers of the Rifle Used in the Sandy Hook Massacre Will Proceed", reason.com, 14 Mar 2019.
Connecticut Supreme Court (CSC) agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiff could not sue under the theory of "negligent entrustment": their claim that "supplying military-style rifles to civilians" qualifies as "transferring a 'dangerous instrumentality' to someone whom the defendant knows or should know is apt to cause harm with it."
CSC did say plaintiffs' could sue under their claim Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing that emphasized the Bushmaster rifle's "militaristic and assaultive qualities".
On the "negligent entrustment" claim, CSC agreed with Jedge Bellis; I quote the Sullum article:
CUTPA link: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_735a.htm#sec_42-110b
Added:
I have read a commenter who stated:
(a) the appeals court didn't rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' case
(b) it was not the appeals court's responsibility to rule on the merits
(c) the appeals court simply ruled the lower court erred in saying that they couldn't sue under CUTP (regardless of merit or lack of merit)
I have noted an article by a columnist Jacob Sullum, "Lawsuit Against Suppliers of the Rifle Used in the Sandy Hook Massacre Will Proceed", reason.com, 14 Mar 2019.
Connecticut Supreme Court (CSC) agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiff could not sue under the theory of "negligent entrustment": their claim that "supplying military-style rifles to civilians" qualifies as "transferring a 'dangerous instrumentality' to someone whom the defendant knows or should know is apt to cause harm with it."
CSC did say plaintiffs' could sue under their claim Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing that emphasized the Bushmaster rifle's "militaristic and assaultive qualities".
On the "negligent entrustment" claim, CSC agreed with Jedge Bellis; I quote the Sullum article:
The plaintiff's lawsuit under CUPTA argues that the military/police style marketing was a "proximate cause" of the Sandy Hook murders, that the marketing would appeal to a troubled mind like Adam Lanza, may have influenced him to choose the XM15, and the attack would have been less deadly if he chose a different gun. (Sullum notes "All of those claims are questionable...").Judge Bellis concluded in 2016 that such a breathtakingly broad understanding of negligent entrustment is at odds with Connecticut common law and with the PLCAA, which defines the cause of action as "the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others." The rifle in this case was purchased by Lanza's mother, and there was no reason to suspect she was such a person. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with Bellis: "We expressly reject the plaintiffs' theory that, merely by selling semiautomatic rifles—which were legal at the time—to the civilian population, the defendants became responsible for any crimes committed with those weapons."
CUTPA link: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_735a.htm#sec_42-110b
Added:
I have read a commenter who stated:
(a) the appeals court didn't rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' case
(b) it was not the appeals court's responsibility to rule on the merits
(c) the appeals court simply ruled the lower court erred in saying that they couldn't sue under CUTP (regardless of merit or lack of merit)
Last edited: