Calif. Court: Gunmaker Not Liable

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Keeping in step with courts around the country, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that victims and families cannot sue gun manufacturers when the products are used illegally.

The 5-1 decision overturned the nation's only state appellate ruling allowing victims to sue a gunmaker for someone's criminal acts. The ruling stemmed from a 1993 massacre of eight in a San Francisco skyscraper.

``In reaching this conclusion, we are not insensitive to the terrible tragedy that occurred on July 1, 1993,'' Justice Ming Chin wrote.

However, state lawmakers have ``set California's public policy regarding gun manufacturers liability under these circumstances. Given that public policy, plaintiffs may not proceed with their negligence claim.''

Every state high court and federal appellate court to consider such lawsuits has ruled that makers of legal, non-defective guns cannot be sued for their criminal misuse.

The latest decision could insulate gunmakers in a lawsuit by Los Angeles, San Francisco and 10 other California cities and counties, claiming faulty design, manufacture and distribution of firearms. At least 16 similar lawsuits have been filed by local governments elsewhere.

The ruling was an important victory for weapons manufacturers and Navegar Inc., the maker of the gun used in the massacre.

Ernest Getto, a lawyer for Navegar, argued there was no evidence of any connection between the manufacturer's legal activities and the criminal conduct of the suicidal gunman, Gian Luigi Ferri.

Ferri, a mentally disturbed man with a grudge against lawyers, entered the skyscraper and opened fire in a law office with two TEC-DC9s and a revolver. He killed eight people and wounded six before killing himself.

Survivors claimed Navegar was liable for damages because it marketed the TEC-DC9 to appeal to criminals, and that Navegar should have foreseen it would be used in a massacre.

Their case was originally thrown out by a judge. But two years ago, California's 1st District Court of Appeal ruled the survivors were entitled to a trial on their claims.

The appellate court said Miami-based Navegar ``had substantial reason to foresee that many of those to whom it made the TEC-DC9 available would criminally misuse it to kill and injure others.''

A high-capacity pistol easily converted to fully automatic fire, the TEC-DC9 was one of the guns used by two students to kill 12 fellow students and a teacher in Littleton, Colo.

Stephen Sposato, whose wife was killed while giving a deposition at the law firm, was outraged by Monday's decision.

``There is no upside for society with a product like that,'' Sposato said. ``I'm a gun owner and a lifelong Republican. But this has got nothing to do with that.''

Carol Kingsley, whose husband was killed when a hail of bullets punctured his closed office door, said the guns ``were designed for mass killing and they were marketing, targeting these types of folks like Ferri.''

In the lone dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the victims' case should proceed to trial on grounds that Navegar was negligent in marketing the fast-firing weapon to the general public. She said Navegar should have restricted its sale to firing ranges, police and military users.

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Answers

it's a good ruling, I think. Spasoto and Justice Mikkle's view would allow the victims to also sue the advertising firms that produced the ads, not to mention the magazines and papers, etc. that ran the ads as well. It has to stop somewhere.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001