Quoted: The NY City suit looks as if it is going to get flushed due to the new manufacturer protection law. I expect this to get the same treatment. Time will tell. Wow, a glock blowing up. Imagine that.
|
The lawsuit from the Portland LEO will procede because it falls under this clause in Public Law 109-92
(a) In General.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(5) Qualified civil liability action.-- ...shall not include--
v) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
|
To blame Glock they will say that the Glock is defective because it kaboomed when used as intended thus there must be a defect. Of course they've also named the ammuntion makers in the lawsuit which says to me they haven't even looked to see where the defect really is.
NYs lawsuit should be covered under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but the last I knew a Federal Judge denied the motion, under a narrow exception that allows lawsuits against the gun makers if their sales or marketing practices violate state or federal statutes in the case NYs nuisance law, while rejecting the city's argument that the law was unconstitutional, to dismiss after passage even though Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Cliff Sterns, sponsors of the bill, both referenced the city's case as a quintessential example of a lawsuit the act would prevent. The trial was postponed to allow for appeal.