On Friday, October 14, Connecticut State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed filed by families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims against Remington, the arms manufacturer who manufactured and distributed the Bushmaster XM15-E2S used by Adam Lanza.
The plaintiffs of the lawsuit claim that the AR-15-type rifle used by the gunman in the Sandy Hook tragedy should not have been available to the public market on the grounds that the weapon was specifically designed for military use. “The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon… the AR-15 was engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.” according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs further alleged “that the sale of assault rifles, including the XM15-E2S, in the civilian marketplace posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others.”
The plaintiffs also claim that Remington knew or should have known “that the utility of the XM15-E2S for hunting, sporting or self-defense was negligible in comparison to the risk that the weapon would be used in its assaultive capacity.”
Basis for Dismissal
Bellis based dismissal of the case off of laws that specifically protect firearm manufacturers in certain liability lawsuits under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). However, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs argued that the case is allowed due to limits of PLCAA protection on the basis of negligent entrustment, in which the manufacturer knew or should have known that their weapon would be used to inflict harm to others.
In Bellis’ decision on Friday, she noted that the PLCAA prohibits legal action against firearms manufacturers “for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products… when the product functioned as designed intended.” Bellis also wrote that, “Based on the clear intent of Congress to narrowly define the negligent entrustment exception, Adam Lanza’s use of the firearm is the only actionable use. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the defendants’ entrustees ‘used’ the firearm within the confines of PLCAA’s definition of the term. To the contrary, the plaintiffs have alleged facts that place them directly in the category of victims to which Congress knowingly denied relief,” according to NPR. To put it simply, because of the narrow definitions of the PLCAA, the plaintiffs may not bring legal action against the firearms manufacturer in this case.
Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer of the Sandy Hook families involved in the case, stated, “While the families are obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision, this is not the end of the fight. We will appeal this decision immediately and continue our work to help prevent the next Sandy Hook from happening.” as reported by the Associated Press.
Leave a Comment