10/3/05 - The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to block a lawsuit by the District of Columbia, as well as several D.C. residents injured or killed by gunfire, against gun manufacturers under D.C.’s Assault Weapons Manufacturing Strict Liability Act.  The gun industry claimed that the Act, which makes assault weapon manufacturers and sellers strictly liable for injuries that result from the criminal use of those guns in the District, violated the U.S. Constitution and asked the Supreme Court to review the case.  District Of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

On April 21, 2005, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the District’s strict liability act and allowed claims by nine individual victims of gun violence to go forward under the act, rejecting claims by the gun industry that the act regulates out-of-state gun manufacturers in violation of the interstate commerce clause.  On July 20, 2005, the defendants asked the Court to overturn the D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling and strike down the strict liability statute as unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court denied.

The ruling also paves the way for claims brought by the family of Pascal Charlot, the sixth victim of the D.C.-area sniper shootings in 2002.  Pascal was shot with a Bushmaster assault rifle and his family brought suit against Bushmaster under the District’s strict liability act.

The strict liability act, the only one of its kind in the nation, provides that anyone who manufactures, imports, or sells an assault weapon or any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot more than more than 12 shots semi-automatically without reloading, is liable for all direct and consequential damages that arise from bodily injury or death caused by the weapon in the District.

Lawsuits brought under the strict liability statute could still be thrown out if legislation granting the gun industry unprecedented immunity from civil liability is passed by Congress.  The Senate passed the legislation in July and it is pending in the House.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=685

I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all.

ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it?

Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it?

None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a WOOT case.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

When will that take place?  Passed the Senate.  What about the House?

CMOS

did this involve a vote?

how did roberts do?

Quoted: None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

When will it be passed and signed. I thought that was all said and done. what the hell did I watch 3 days of CSPAN for if they didn't even accomplish anything in those debates?

It'll just hang in limbo in the court books for a while anyway. Their just loading the books with these cases in the veen that the Lawful Commerce thing doesn't get passed at which point they'll attempt to bankrupt the gun industry by a massive onslaught of liability cases in court.

It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

It's a done deal. I just wish the House would get off their asses and vote on the bill.

Once it's signed into law, I'm gonna make a prediction that the gun-grabbing shit-bags (and possibly the ACLU), will file for an injunction or lawsuit that would allow any claims that were filed before the law goes into effect to proceed.

I guess I will never understand the mentality of some people.

Would you sue GM because a hit-and-run driver killed your wife?

How about suing major leage baseball because your uncle was killed with a bat?

Morons.

Someone really needs to get a good lawyer, and sue automobile manufacturers on behalf of someone killed by a drunk driver.....

There is no way the big 3 would let that case win, and then couldn't it be used as a precedence in these cases? Afterall, its the same principle....

Buy more guns now, just in case!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a WOOT case.

 

That about sums it up for me.

How can people be so goddamned stupid?!

How did Roberts vote?

Quoted: It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC.

Someone needs to sue DC for failing to keep the guns out of the city in the first place. They are the ones that passed the law, they should be held to account to enforce it. Gun manufacturers certainly didn't ship them there.

Quoted: How did Roberts vote?

I dont think they tell you when they decide to hear a case. It's irrelevant anyway.

Now, how he votes on the case after arguments are made IS relevant.

That kind of makes me sick to my stomach. Reminds me of the idiot that spilled a cup of hot McDonalds coffee on herself and sued THEM for millions. Lets start sueing car makers and pool companies next

Quoted: How did Roberts vote?

Found this on the SCOTUS website:

BERETTA U.S.A.CORP.,ET AL.V.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,ET AL.
The motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the
petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.The petition for
a writ of certiorari is denied.The Chief Justice took no part
in the consideration or decision of this motion and this
petition.

If I'm reading this correctly, the Brady asshats press release is misleading. the release makes it sound as if the court heard the case and ruled against the defendents. In actuality the court simply refused to hear the case.

Quoted: Quoted: It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC. Someone needs to sue DC for failing to keep the guns out of the city in the first place. They are the ones that passed the law, they should be held to account to enforce it. Gun manufacturers certainly didn't ship them there.

doh I was about to post that.

I don't understand how people can get away with banning guns but still not requiring or holding the police responsible to protect you. If you can't own a gun then the state should be liable.

Quoted: How did Roberts vote?

Roberts was just sworn in Monday. He hasn't even started working yet.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

Sooner the better

Quoted: Quoted: How did Roberts vote? Found this on the SCOTUS website: BERETTA U.S.A.CORP.,ET AL.V.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,ET AL. The motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. If I'm reading this correctly, the Brady asshats press release is misleading. the release makes it sound as if the court heard the case and ruled against the defendents. In actuality the court simply refused to hear the case.

You read correctly. The Court denied certiorari, which means they decided not to hear the appeal. By default, the lower Court decision stands. The overwhleming majority of cases appealed to the SCOTUS are never actually given a full hearing there.

This is retarded.

Quoted: This is retarded.

Please elaborate. What is retarded?

Quoted: This is retarded.

Three little words just made me laugh... THANKS!

Quoted: Quoted: This is retarded. Please elaborate. What is retarded?

I got it to mean that this whole case of suing the manufacturers is retarded.

Meanwhile the DC snipers never fired more than one or two shots per incident so a SA with more than 12 rounds is really irrelevent. The snipers could've used a bolt action deer rifle and the victims would be just as dead and their wouldnt be a case either! so fucking stupid.

Quoted: That kind of h.

The two issues of DC's law and McDonald's liability are not related.

From:  http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

MYTHBUSTER!
THE "MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE"
AND OTHER FICTIONS
Anecdotal descriptions of a few atypical lawsuits intended to shock or amuse the public have been the cornerstone of the business community’s anti-jury advertising and public relations campaign since the 1980s. Focusing on a few rare, anecdotal cases, instead of the majority of cases that pass through the courts each year, feeds into a false and dangerous perception that the system is overflowing with frivolous lawsuits. Often such verdicts have either been thrown out or substantially reduced by trial judges or appellate courts, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Yet the public is given the false impression that a plaintiff received a windfall, a defendant was financially ruined, or the system failed. This is particularly irresponsible when, as is typical, cases are not cited by name or even by date so they can be checked for accuracy. When journalists or researchers do track them down, they find in virtually every situation that such cases have been misreported and misused.

The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”

McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.

Irresponsible use of anecdotal cases by “tort reform” proponents is nothing new. The case of Charles Bigbee was the “McDonald’s coffee case” of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan described Bigbee’s case in a 1986 speech as follows: “In California, a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of his car, and crashed into a phone booth. Now, it’s no surprise that the injured man sued. But you might be startled to hear whom he sued: the telephone company and associated firms!” In fact, Bigbee’s leg was severed after a car hit the phone booth in which he had been trapped. The door jammed after he saw the car coming ‚ he tried to flee but could not. The accident left him unable to walk, severely depressed and unable to work. Because the phone company had placed the booth near a known hazardous intersection, and because the door was defective, keeping him trapped inside, he sued the phone company for compensation. Bigbee was brought to Congress to testify. He said, “I believe it would be very helpful if I could talk briefly about my case and show how it has been distorted not only by the President, but by the media as well. That is probably the best way to show that people who are injured due to the fault of others should be justly compensated for the damages they have to live with the rest of their lives.” House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, July 23, 1986. Charles Bigbee died in 1994 at age 52. Nader, Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996).

Quoted: It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC.

(As you're probably aware) this is much larger than suing the gun industry for damages.

The ultimate goal of D.C. (and The Brady Bunch, et al) is to sue gun manufacturers into oblivion.

And you are aware of this, right?  In 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals went further and ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

Just FYI...

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

How is it that a pending case will be affected by a peice of legislation that is signed into law after the fact?

Quoted: Quoted: How did Roberts vote? Roberts was just sworn in Monday. He hasn't even started working yet.

Uuh...Yes he has.  The man already heard arguments as the chief.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case. How is it that a pending case will be affected by a peice of legislation that is signed into law after the fact?

Because the law specifically halts all such actions currently underway.

Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case.

The lawsuits have already been filed for some time..... Doesn't change a thing.  Law passed, or not.


Doubtable that it'd get passed with a retroactive clause. How often do you actually see THAT happen...

Guess we'll see if the SC squashes the lawsuit(s) somehow down the road, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case. The lawsuits have already been filed for some time..... Doesn't change a thing.  Law passed, or not. Doubtable that it'd get passed with a retroactive clause. How often do you actually see THAT happen... Guess we'll see if the SC squashes the lawsuit(s) somehow down the road, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

Read the law:

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT. (a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

Quoted: Quoted: It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC. (As you're probably aware) this is much larger than suing the gun industry for damages. The ultimate goal of D.C. (and The Brady Bunch, et al) is to sue gun manufacturers into oblivion. And you are aware of this, right?  In 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals went further and ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." Just FYI...

I realize they want to destroy the big bad gun companies. In layman's terms, is that the ruling that establishes that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect an individual?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case. It's a done deal. I just wish the House would get off their asses and vote on the bill. Once it's signed into law, I'm gonna make a prediction that the gun-grabbing shit-bags (and possibly the ACLU), will file for an injunction or lawsuit that would allow any claims that were filed before the law goes into effect to proceed.

Ohh, COUNT on it......  This WILL happen.  The vultures will certainly be looking to recoup all the hours they spent preparing cases and so forth.  And all the anti type scumbags will get their 2 cents in as well, to try and push through the existing suits.  

There's about an ice cube's chance in hell, that this will just die a sudden death..  Anyone who thinks this'll just go away when the bill is signed into law, better pull their head out of their ass....


This IS the government, we're talking about, after all  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I guess we'll see how Meirs feels about the SA pretty soon after all. ETA: Will this be a SA case or a commerce clause or a liability case? Would that depend upon how the lawyers argue it? None of the above. Once the Gun Liability bill is finally passed and signed, it will be a MOOT case. The lawsuits have already been filed for some time..... Doesn't change a thing.  Law passed, or not. Doubtable that it'd get passed with a retroactive clause. How often do you actually see THAT happen... Guess we'll see if the SC squashes the lawsuit(s) somehow down the road, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. Read the law: SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT. (a) In General- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

I stand quite pleasantly corrected  Thank you Sir !   I'm fairly suprised to see they actually allowed that bit through.


Still, I've no doubt injuctions will be filed, regardless.......  These fuckers fight dirty and I won't put much of anything past the anti crowd.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It should be a moot case because guns are supposed to be BANNED in DC and aren't supposed to be there in the first place. We all know how well laws work to discourage criminals though! How the hell can they be held liable when the residents there aren't supposed to even have them? It's not like the manufacturers are trucking them in and selling them at flea markets in DC. (As you're probably aware) this is much larger than suing the gun industry for damages. The ultimate goal of D.C. (and The Brady Bunch, et al) is to sue gun manufacturers into oblivion. And you are aware of this, right?  In 1981, the D.C. Court of Appeals went further and ruled, "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." Just FYI... I realize they want to destroy the big bad gun companies. In layman's terms, is that the ruling that establishes that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect an individual?

Absolutely, sir.

The link I provided will take you to a short summation of the 1975 story that prompted the ruling.