The suit contended that the manufacturers often advertise their products with
the illicit market in mind. It singled out Glock's promotion of its 9-millimeter
"pocket rocket" concealable handgun, the one Furrow is believed to have used
when he killed Ileto.
In all, the suit argued, the gun manufacturers were guilty of negligence and
being a dangerous public nuisance.
But in a 37-page draft opinion, Collins said the plaintiffs had failed to show a
link between the manufacturers' marketing policies and Furrow's crime.
"While it may be foreseeable that some criminals might obtain Glock firearms and
use them to harm others," she wrote, "there was no way of foreseeing that this
particular individual [Furrow] would obtain a Glock firearm and use it to injure
these plaintiffs."
Collins said she was influenced by California's product liability law, which
"evidences an intent to hold shooters, not manufacturers, responsible for gun
violence."
Collins also dismissed the claim that the gun manufacturers' distribution
methods created a public nuisance under California law.
She said the nuisance law does not apply to the lawful manufacture and sale of
non-defective products.
In court Monday were plaintiffs Loren Lieb and Alan Stepakoff, whose son,
Joshua, then 6, was shot in the leg and hip. They declined to comment on the
ruling.
Koji Fukumura, an attorney for Norinco, praised Collins' ruling, saying she
"came to the only conclusion possible under California law--that these
defendants owed no duty to prevent Buford Furrow from committing his heinous
acts."
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to
www.lats.com/rights.