Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘guns’

Ninth Circuit gun decision

Eugene Volokh has extensive commentary in several posts on the recent Ninth Circuit 2-1 decision holding gun manufacturers potentially liable because a mentally ill bigot, Buford Furrow, went on a shooting rampage. (David Kravets, AP, Nov. 20) (via Bashman). Furrow is not one of the thirteen defendants.

Trivia not noted elsewhere: the two judges in the majority opinion, Richard Paez (see Kausfiles, Sep. 17) and Sidney Thomas, had some notoriety a couple of months ago when they were two thirds of a panel that made nationwide headlines by trying to enjoin the California recall election before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned them in an 11-0 decision. Among the problems with this decision: it forces California standards upon defendants in other states in violation of the Commerce Clause; and, like the punchcard case, the judges impose a new judicially-created rule on their public-policy say-so without any thought as to real-world consequences, which Professor Volokh effectively elucidates. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Peter Nordberg (who is better known to readers of this site for his Blog 702, see July 5), is quoted by the AP as saying “I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision to sustain a claim like this one.” Does it make me an old fogey already because I remember when calling a position “unprecedented” was an argument against its judicial adoption? (UPDATE: Peter Nordberg responds.)(& welcome Kausfiles readers)

UPDATE: As part of a lengthy criticism of the opinion, Clayton Cramer notes the absurdity of the following allegation: “Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants intentionally produced more firearms than the legitimate market demands with the intent of marketing their firearms to illegal purchasers who buy guns on the secondary market.” (Nov. 20) (via Volokh). That same logic of liability can, of course, be used to hit the manufacturers of any product that can be misused: alcohol, cigarettes, slot machines or casinos (the market of “legitimate gamblers” as opposed to addicts), prescription medications, sugar, SUVs, telephones. Congress is considering action to undo the decision. (Jason Hoppin, “9th Circuit Takes Aim at Gun Companies”, The Recorder, Nov. 21).

Read On…

Filed under: , ,

Where eagles fear to litigate

Eagle Pass, Texas, in Maverick County along the Rio Grande, isn’t likely to shake its reputation for plaintiff-friendly jurisprudence any time soon, as a San Antonio Express-News profile makes clear. “L. Wayne Scott, a professor at St. Mary’s University Law School…. who has mediated civil cases in Eagle Pass, estimates defendants there are roughly 10 times more likely to lose than in conservative Dallas and two or three times more likely to fall than in San Antonio. … Indeed, the prospect of facing a jury in Eagle Pass — where Mayor Joaquin L. Rodriguez also is one of the city’s top plaintiff’s attorneys — frequently makes companies more willing to settle and in higher amounts than they would agree to in other venues.” Although a 1995 round of state tort reforms has somewhat curbed the rampant forum-shopping by which plaintiff’s lawyers used to bring suits from around the state to Eagle Pass, there is still a steady diet of cases to be had against major national defendants, including suits against automakers over road crashes and a case against Connecticut-based shotgun-maker O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc. over a hunting accident that took place in another Texas county. Local plaintiff’s attorney Earl Herring says that a case worth $10,000 in Eagle Pass would be “worth $500 in Uvalde.” (Greg Jefferson, “Eagle Pass remains known as plaintiff’s attorney paradise”, Nov. 2).

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Victory in Missouri

“A St. Louis County judge has dismissed a lawsuit the city of St. Louis brought against the gun industry seeking reimbursement for costs associated with gun-related injuries. St. Louis County Judge Emmett O’Brien said he found no basis for the claim. O’Brien dismissed the lawsuit against gun manufacturers on Oct. 15. Then on Friday, he dismissed it against the remaining defendants: gun distributors and trade organizations. In a five-page opinion, O’Brien wrote that such lawsuits would open ‘a floodgate to additional litigation.’ He also said that ‘issues of both logic and fairness’ favored dismissing the case.” (“Judge dismisses lawsuit against gun industry”, AP/Southeast Missourian (Cape Girardeau), Oct. 29). And this from last month: “The Missouri Legislature overrode on Friday Gov. Bob Holden’s veto of a bill that bars cities, counties and other political subdivisions from suing gun dealers and manufacturers for the social costs of their products. … The legislation was prompted in part by St. Louis’ lawsuit against gun manufacturers, which [state Rep. Larry] Crawford said aimed to bankrupt gun and ammunition companies.” (Bill Bell Jr., “Gun makers get shield from suits as 3rd veto is rejected”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 12).

Filed under: ,

“Why does the gun industry deserve special protection?”

…runs the rhetorical question posed by anti-gun litigators. “Because the gun industry is under special attack,” responds Eugene Volokh (Oct. 9). A version of the federal pre-emption litigation recommended in this space (Apr. 4-6; my hearing statement) may be on the way to passing Congress soon, but proponents have made what sounds like a rather major concession to win the support of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), by allowing suits to proceed against guns deemed defective; trial lawyers have long pushed the idea that the absence of some feature such as a timed trigger lock is really a “design defect” for which manufacturers ought to be held liable. If such theories are left unscathed by the new legislation, the push for gun-control-through-litigation is likely to continue (Jesse J. Holland, “Gun Makers May Win Exemption From Suits”, Washington Post, Oct. 9). See also Pejman Yousefzadeh, Oct. 9.

More: Eugene Volokh has follow-up posts on the federalism aspects of the pre-emption bill, here and here (Oct. 10)

Filed under: ,

Update: Calif. local govts. settle with gun dealers

Another portion of the municipal gun-suit campaign is ending with a whimper, not a bang: San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office has announced a tentative settlement of litigation by California local governments against several gun dealers and distributors. If the deal is approved by the 12 governments and a San Diego judge, the dealers and distributors would change certain business practices and pay the plaintiff governments $70,000 — far less than the $2 million the governments are estimated to have racked up thus far in legal expenses, even though the suits have been touted in the past as a moneymaking proposition. “Earlier this year, San Diego Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia granted summary judgment in favor of about 20 manufacturers and trade associations, including big-name companies such as Beretta and Smith & Wesson, Clements said. The plaintiff jurisdictions have appealed that decision. But the five dealers and distributors were to face a trial.”

Read On…

Filed under: ,

Victory in Michigan

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has thrown out the city of Detroit’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers and dealers, along with the companion suit by surrounding Wayne County (see Aug. 30, 1999; . Reversing a lower court, the appeals panel found that state legislation enacted to bar such suits in 2000 was constitutional. (Dawson Bell, “Appeals court throws out Detroit, Wayne County lawsuits”, Detroit Free Press, Aug. 8; opinion in PDF format)

Filed under: , ,

Blumenthal embarrassed on gun suits, again

Headline-grabbing Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, whom we’ve slammed in this space previously for filing a dubious antitrust action aimed at punishing gun companies for having acted vigorously to stay out of the Clinton administration’s abortive Smith & Wesson deal, has just suffered an embarrassing defeat in his state’s high court. Blumenthal claimed that an email sent by one gun maker constituted proof that gun companies had acted criminally in resisting the S&W deal. But the Connecticut Supreme Court, hardly an assemblage of Second Amendment enthusiasts, has just ruled unanimously that Blumenthal’s claim was false. “[T]he e-mail reveals nothing that suggests an intent to break the law,” wrote Justice Joette Katz for the court. ” … Furthermore, to the extent that the e-mail refers to any action, it is the actions of others, and not of the respondents; it neither advocates that Kimber take any action of its own, nor that others take a particular action.” The new decision upholds the 2001 ruling of Hartford Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant that the e-mail was patently an “update of [firearms] litigation developments and does not advocate any criminal or illegal activity.” Will Blumenthal apologize? Will he finally start getting bad press? We’re not getting our hopes up (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Accidentally Sent Gun Industry E-Mail Found to Be Privileged”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Aug. 5).

Filed under: , , ,

Tom Brokaw on gun lawsuits

On Monday NBC News ran a supposed “in-depth report” on the gun-suit preemption bill now pending in Congress (no transcript online), essentially parroting the arguments of the bill’s critics. Blogger Alphecca provides a concise critique (Jul. 28). See Apr. 4-6, Apr. 25-27. J.R. Labbe of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram scoffs at the rather desperate efforts of some gun-litigation backers to spin Judge Weinstein’s dismissal of the NAACP lawsuit as somehow a victory for them (“Gun debate lacks common sense”, Tallahassee Democrat, Jul. 30). The National Association of Manufacturers warned this March that the precedents being sought by anti-gun litigators, “if widely applied, could result in bankruptcies for countless manufacturers of lawful products … ‘Today it?s handguns, but tomorrow it could be power tools, golf clubs or automobiles,’ said NAM Vice President for Litigation Quentin Riegel.” (NAM press release, Mar. 26). See also Dave Kopel, “Ban lawsuits that hurt legal gun industry”, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 19 (“At an American Bar Association symposium in 1999, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys for the antigun lawsuits explained that the attorneys had read the Dun & Bradstreet reports on the firearms companies, estimated how much the companies could spend defending themselves against litigation, and then filed so many cases in so many jurisdictions that the gun companies would not be able to spend the money to see the cases through to a verdict.”)

Filed under: , ,

Another New York gun lawsuit dismissed

Upholding an advisory jury’s verdict in favor of the firearms industry, federal judge Jack Weinstein has dismissed the NAACP’s public nuisance lawsuit against 68 gun manufacturers and distributors, discussed earlier in this space. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had asked the court to declare the manufacturers and distributors liable for creating a public nuisance under New York law. Rather than monetary damages, the NAACP sought “sweeping restrictions on buyers and sellers of handguns.” (Tom Hays, “Judge Dismisses NAACP Gun Lawsuit,” Assoc. Press, July 21, 2003). Judge Weinstein said that “while the NAACP’s evidence showed some gun retailers were careless in allowing a large number of handguns to enter the illegal market, the group did not prove its members suffered unique harm.” (“Court dismisses NAACP gun suit,” Reuters, July 21, 2003). His 175-page opinion is available here.

Judge Weinstein’s ruling follows by a month a Manhattan appellate court’s decision affirming the dismissal of state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers, also brought on public nuisance grounds.

Filed under: , , ,

Update: Tony Martin case

U.K.: “Tony Martin, the farmer who killed a criminal who broke into his house, has been denied a preparatory home visit before his release on parole next week because he is considered to be a “danger to burglars”.” (Daniel Foggo, “Tony Martin refused leave ‘because of risk to burglars'”, Sunday Telegraph (UK), Jul. 20). Last month, in a decision that caused a public furor in Britain, a judge ruled that career criminal Brendan Fearon was entitled under the Human Rights Act “to sue Martin for a reported ?15,000 damages for wounds he received during a break-in at the farmer’s home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. … Unemployed Fearon, who is currently serving an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing, claimed his injuries [Martin shot him in the leg] had affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he had suffered post traumatic stress.” (“Ex-Minister Calls for Review over Fearon Case”, Nottingham Evening Post, Jun. 25; Chris Bishop, “Date set for burglar’s bid to sue Martin”, Eastern Daily Press, Jul. 2)(more “maybe crime does pay” cases).

Filed under: , ,