Judge allows evidence gathering to move forward in Sandy Hook suit against gun manufacturers

BRIDGEPORT >> A state Superior Court judge did not rule Monday on a motion to strike the case filed last year against the manufacturer of the weapon used in the deadly 2012 shooting at a Newtown elementary school.

But Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis heard another round of oral arguments before her upcoming decision on whether to throw the case out, and ruled the discovery process could continue. The defense agreed to file a motion for a protective order on discovery materials by July 5. Such a protective order would make all of the discovery documents sealed and not available to the public.

*snip*

The suit seeks to hold Bushmaster Firearms and Remington partially responsible for the tragedy, claiming they should have known or did know that firearms of that type, if sold to civilians, would cause injury to others, according to the complaint. A trial is scheduled to begin April 3, 2018.

“It is not an excuse to say all they do is deliver [the firearms] to a wholesaler,” said Josh Koskoff, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case.

Koskoff said manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers know the weapons are likely to end up in the wrong hands.

Koskoff also spoke at length about the weapon’s capabilities and described military protocol for handling the assault rifles, which he said includes putting an entire military base on lockdown if one of the firearms is not accounted for.

These types of assault rifles are the weapons of choice for the U.S. military, the best military in the world, Koskoff said.

“And there it was, not on a battlefield, but on the floor of Vicki Soto’s first-grade classroom,” Koskoff said, referring to a teacher killed in the attack. “It did not get there by accident, and the shooter did not use it by accident.”

However, the defense argues that the manufacturers are protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act, passed in 2005, which does not allow for manufacturers to face charges over the criminal use of weapons.

James Vogts, representing Remington in the case, told the court Monday that manufacturers were two or three times removed from the eventual customer of the firearm, and therefore cannot be responsible for criminal activity.

Vogts said that because the sale of the rifle used in the shooting was lawfully made, the manufacturer did not display negligence of trust.

“If the manufacturer is not there … how can it be shown that the manufacturer knew or should have known of the [customer’s] incompetence?” Vogts said.

Whether the firearms should be sold is a decision reserved for legislators, not the court, he said.

Koskoff agreed that banning the weapons was a legislative issue, but he said a guilty verdict in this case would force firearms manufacturers to decide if it’s worth continuing to sell the product if they could face further legal consequences after other shootings.

Koskoff said before the proceedings Monday that if the case continues to trial, one question he will ask the executives of Remington is whether the continued sale of these assault rifles is worth the number of civilian lives that have been lost.

*snip*

Link

Quoted:
I'm fine with it as long as the family's pay for the defenses' attorney fees when they lose

Quoted:
I'm fine with it as long as the family's pay for the defenses' attorney fees when they lose

Koskoff said manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers know the weapons are likely to end up in the wrong hands.

Quoted:
I'm fine with it as long as the family's pay for the defenses' attorney fees when they lose

Quoted:
Wonder if Chevrolet will get sued in the same fashion the next time some jerk off kills someone racing a Corvette. My guess would be no.

Activist judge's going to activist.

Quoted:
Don't we already have a precedent set that says you cannot hold a manufacturer responsible for what someone does with their products?

Quoted:
I'm fine with it as long as the family's pay for the defenses' attorney fees when they lose