Suing Gun Manufacturers?

Question

Why is the State allowed to prosecute(and win) cases against firearm manufacturers for someone using one of their guns in a crime. If Ford was sued for a drunk driver in an F-150 killing someone or Boeing being sued for a terrorist hijacking a plane, the case would be immediately thrown out. What is the difference between these. So are people are held responsible for their actions except when a gun is used, so if a gun is used it's the maker or the gun it's self at fault rather than the criminal who pulled the trigger?

Answer 1

Criminal law is a matter of statute. There is no law relating highway deaths to cars or aviation deaths to aircraft.

Indeed, I know of no law that relates shooting deaths to aircraft manufacturers, although I might have missed it.

On the other hand, there are laws relating to the manufacture and sale of guns and one could imagine that if Saturday-night specials are illegal then their manufacture and sale could lead to prosecution with or without a resulting death.

As far as I know, the only prosecutions relating to unlawful or criminal use of guns have been, for example, like the gun used by John Allen Muhammad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad The seller of that gun failed to keep records and (as I recall it said) sold guns to felons and others who cannot legally buy them.

These are not Second Amendment issues.

Answer 2

Umm...dude. There has never been a case where a gun manufacturer has been held liable for a gun crime. EVER! Any attempt at such a suit has been thrown out immediately.

As a law student, I really really hate it when (1) people think they know what the law is, (2) recite it to others, and then (3) have some sort of righteous indignation against lawyers when their premise is wrong to begin with. Read a few cases on the subject, won't you.

Oh, and other thing. If someone is suing another person then it is one private citizen against another (in your fallacious example it would be a citzen against a gun manufacturer). Thus, "the state" is not involved at all (and there is thus no "prosecution"). Rather it is a civil suit.

Answer 3

Simple answer: Litigation lawyers and deep pockets.

Your insightful example of the drunk in the F-150 killing someone failed to mention that someone in this case will more than likely get sued - namely, the bartender and the establishment that served alcohol to the drunken jerk.

Also, airlines do get sued when they are hijacked - usually a class action suit - lawyers always have a win-win situation in class action suits.

In the case of a firearm used in a criminal fashion, a paper trail analysis to make sure the manufacturer dotted all of the I's and crossed all of the T's when the weapon was sold is normal procedure in the investigation - any discrepancy at all in the transaction and a law suit won't be far behind.
If the manufacturer knowingly sells a weapon that can easily be made illegal (converted to fully automatic with a simple file or minor modification, for example) he will be sued.
Obviously, if a weapon malfunctions - the manufacturer will be in deep sh1t for sure.

You put a paper cup full of hot coffee in your lap at the drive through and drive away - when it inevitable spills on your crotch, no problem...you sue McDonald's - AND WIN!

The gun example you site is just the tip of a much, much more serious problem with our legal system when it comes to consequences for our actions or just plain personal responsibility.

Answer 4

If he became helpful, what's to provide up somebody from suing Ford or Chrysler if somebody gets drunk and at the same time as utilising kills somebody else? each guy or woman who became ever injured or lost a family contributors member to a drunk driving force might then have a priority set for suing the manufacture of the motor vehicle. The lawsuits weren't relating to the money, yet approximately utilising gun manufactures out of company and in some occasion with smaller manufactures, they succeeded. the only ones who win indexed under are the legal experts. the entire concept is foolishness and that i'm happy that those lawsuits can now no longer happen.

Answer 5

because GUN laws and lawsuits area Republican verse Democrat political issue, if a Democrat can sue a gun maker, it will appear that they are solivng gun related deaths in their city, it's feel good lawsuits but does nothing to reel in gun related homicides. Oddly enough since the liberal democrats do not believe in personal responsibility and so any criminal who commits a crime is not really held liable for there action in their minds, so suing the makers in their flawed logic makes everything right, and most of all gets votes... it does not change the crime rate what so ever...it does not affect gangbangers getting a hold of guns.. they in turn do not want to address social ills ( single mothers, welfare issues ) as they refuse to see the correlation between poverty and crime, between self respect and self reliance. no it's part of the grand scheme of things in which mother government takes care of everything, so that he poor and uneducated come to rely on them, thus giving them power.

Answer 6

what a messed up system! What they should do is start registering guns and even ammunition so the each has a unique identification number. If someone's been shot, vandalizing, or poaching, you can track the person down by the bullet or gun identification.

It's like owning a credit card, if yours gets stolen or lost, you just simply report it immediately so you won't get wrongly charged.

That's the solution!

Answer 7

LeAnne you should research things before you post about them. That McDonalds coffee lawsuit is not nearly as foolish and most people thing it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case

The ability to sue gun manufactuers and dealers largely went away with the law that was passed a year ago or so. You can still sue though if you can prove gross negligence.

Gun registration is a terrible idea and ballistic fingerprinting is junk science.

Answer 8

because lawyers want to make money. and will sue anyone they think will pay up. in most cases hoping for a settlement, because it is offen cheaper to pay a settlement than it is to fight it and win. It would be like MADD sueing the farmers for growing hops in a drunk driver law suit. It makes no sense, and only ties up the courts and wastes tax payer dollars.

Answer 9

I would agree, it is ridiculous. So was the law suits against the tobacco companies in my mind. And your examples are valid...why not sue the auto makers, power companies, fast food companies, water treatment plants, .......the list could go on and on......

Answer 10

Bam. What redhawk said.