http://www.hotcoco.com/news/california/stories/cli00688.htm

Published Friday, January 21, 2000

High court to review case against gun maker

The state justices will look at an unprecedented ruling in a 1993 massacre that would allow negligence suits against firearms firms

By Howard Mintz SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The California Supreme Court will wade into some of the unsettled legal questions surrounding the nationwide crusade against the firearms industry, agreeing this week to review an unprecedented lower court ruling that opened the door for negligence suits against gun makers.

In a brief order, six of the Supreme Court's seven justices voted to consider the appeal of a Florida gun manufacturer facing a lawsuit over the July 1993 massacre at 101 California St. in San Francisco. Justice Stanley Mosk was the only member of the state's high court who would have allowed the earlier ruling to stand.

The court's action effectively negates September's ruling by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which held for the first time that gun manufacturers could be sued for negligence in California if they market and sell weapons with disregard for public safety. It was believed to be the only appeals court in the country to ever conclude that the gun industry could be held responsible for abuses by criminals.

Lawyers involved in the gun litigation expected the Supreme Court to take the case, in part because of the novel legal issues and also because of the high-profile nature of the lawsuit. In addition, the case has implications for cities and counties across California that sued gun makers last year.

"I wasn't surprised," said San Francisco deputy city attorney Owen Clement, who is supervising a Northern California lawsuit against the industry. "It's an issue where there (have not been) a lot appellate decisions. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court will do with it."

The case before the Supreme Court involves a lawsuit filed by the families and victims of gunman Gian Luigi Ferri, who killed eight people and injured six others in a shooting spree at the high-rise offices of the now-defunct San Francisco law firm Pettit & Martin. The suit targeted Navegar Inc., which manufactured the two assault weapons Ferri used in the attack.

A San Francisco judge dismissed the suit three years ago, but the appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, disagreed. In a 111-page opinion, the majority found that "Navegar's knowledge of the extraordinary risks of misuse posed by the weapon as designed and marketed ... created risks above and beyond those citizens may reasonably be expected to bear in a society in which firearms may legally be acquired and used."

Lawyers suing gun makers around the country say such a ruling, if it withstands Supreme Court review, would negate one of the industry's chief arguments: that it sells a legal product and cannot be held legally responsible for abuses by criminals.

But the Supreme Court's decision to review the case is the latest legal victory for the gun industry, which is under siege in dozens of states from lawsuits alleging that it should pay the cost of gun-related violence. State court judges recently dismissed suits filed by Chicago and Miami against gun makers, although those cases were filed under different legal theories than those being used in California.

Two separate cases have been filed in California, one in Los Angeles and the other in San Francisco, where Bay Area governments including East Palo Alto, Oakland and San Mateo County have joined the legal fight. Gun makers are attempting to have the cases consolidated and heard in San Diego, but the cities resist a shift in venue.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the gun industry hope the Supreme Court will shoot down the case against Navegar.

"We're looking forward to presenting this issue to the California Supreme Court," said Los Angeles attorney Ernie Getto, who represents Navegar.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000

Answers

What you have missed is the Politics of this "issue." The operatives for the Democratic party and their friends the trial lawyers are both benefitting. The lawyers get a another huge group of companies to rape and pillage and in return the democratics get the steady destruction of our civil rights. It is 1984 and the fascists need to gain at least 4 more years to cross the road of no return in the shredding of the Constitution.

Anyone who thinks Al Gore isn't part of what's been going on is blind.

-- Squid (ItsDArk@down.here), January 23, 2000.

We can only hope (and pray) for a favorable outcome...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 24, 2000.