Newtown families seek to hold gun maker
accountable in Connecticut court
Send a link to a friend
[November 15, 2017]
By Tina Bellon
HARTFORD, Conn. (Reuters) - A lawyer for
families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting told
Connecticut's highest court on Tuesday that Remington Outdoor Co
[FREDM.UL] should be held responsible because its military-themed
marketing was designed to appeal to young men like killer Adam Lanza.
"They knew they were hitting their mark and Lanza was responding to
their marketing," said lawyer Joshua Koskoff
Lanza, 20, used a Remington AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, a semi-automatic
civilian version of the U.S. military's M-16, to kill 20 school children
between the ages of 6 and 7, as well as six adult staff members, at
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012.
He then killed himself.
Following the conclusion Tuesday's arguments, the Connecticut Supreme
Court will now decide whether the families of nine of the victims and
one survivor can proceed with a trial seeking to hold Remington, along
with a gun wholesaler and local retailer, responsible for the carnage
based on its marketing.

A representative for the court declined to say when it would rule.
The families are advancing a somewhat novel legal argument in hopes of
overcoming a federal law enacted by U.S. Congress in 2005 to shield gun
manufacturers from liability for how their products are used.
Remington's lawyer, James Vogts, told the Connecticut court that the
families' claims, first filed in 2014, are barred by the 2005 law.
"What happened in the school that morning was horrific," Vogts said.
"But no matter how much we wished those children and teachers were still
alive, the law needs to be applied."
A lower court judge agreed with the gun maker and dismissed the
families' lawsuit in 2016. But the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to
hear the case a week after the families filed their first appeal.
The packed courtroom in Hartford, Connecticut, included many of the
victims' family members. Ian Hockley, who lost his 6-year-old son,
Dylan, in the shooting, told reporters after the proceeding that
families were "running out of patience" over the gun maker's ability to
escape liability.
"But we have not lost one ounce of confidence in the validity of our
case," he said.
[to top of second column] |

Mourners hold signs during a solidarity vigil in memory of victims
of Las Vegas' Route 91 Harvest music festival mass killing, in
Newtown, Connecticut U.S., the site of the 2012 Sandy Hook school
shooting, October 4, 2017. REUTERS/Michelle McLoughlin/File Photo

The families claim Remington and the other defendants "extolled the
militaristic and assaultive qualities" of the AR-15, advertising the
rifle as "mission-adaptable" and "the ultimate combat weapons
system" in a deliberate pitch to a demographic of young men
fascinated by the military.
The families said Lanza was part of that demographic and cited media
reports saying he previously expressed a desire to join the army.
The rifle was bought by Lanza's mother, whom he also killed, as a
gift for him or for the two of them to share, the lawsuit claims.
The families' argument is based on the legal doctrine of negligent
entrustment, in which a product is carelessly sold or given to a
person at high risk of using it in a harmful way. Negligent
entrustment is specifically excepted from the 2005 gun maker shield
laws.
The argument has historically been used where someone lends a car to
a high-risk driver who goes on to cause an accident. It has met with
some success in lawsuits against gun shop owners, but legal experts
said it has never been used before to target a manufacturer.
David Studdert, a Stanford law professor, said on Monday he thought
negligent entrustment was a tough argument for the families to make
because it has traditionally involved someone having direct
knowledge that another person poses a risk.

If the Sandy Hook families are successful, Timothy Lytton, a law
professor at Georgia State University, said on Monday he would
expect the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.
(Reporting by Tina Bellon; Editing by Anthony Lin and Matthew Lewis)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |