by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Sturm, Ruger & Company Inc., the nation’’s largest firearms manufacturer, announced that on Apr. 29 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the Washington, DC, trial court’s earlier dismissal of negligent distribution and public nuisance claims brought by the city of Washington against the company and other members of the firearms industry (District of Columbia, Appellant, v. Beretta USA et al., No. 03-CV-24).

However, the ruling did not entirely end the court threat against the industry even though it resolved the negligent distribution and public nuisance claims.

In a related case, the court of appeals decision permitted nine individual plaintiffs to proceed against firearms manufacturers for alleged violations of the District’s “Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990” (Lawson et al. v. Beretta USA et al., No. 03-CV-38).

The appellate court ruled that the city’s claims of negligence and public nuisance failed basic tests of duty, forseeability, and remoteness, citing as legal authority the numerous dismissals of other cities’ similar claims in other cases. As to the individual plaintiffs, the appellate court held that they had sufficiently pleaded a claim under Washington, DC’s, “strict liability” act and that they should be permitted to proceed to discovery in an attempt to prove their allegations that each was injured by the discharge of a specific “assault weapon or machinegun” as defined by the local law.

The court clearly contemplated dismissal of manufacturers after discovery for lack of evidence as to which specific product “caused plaintiffs injuries,” and reaffirmed that punitive damages are not available to plaintiffs under the act.

“While we were pleased that the court reached the correct decision on the city’s attempt to assert now largely-discredited legal theories of public nuisance and negligent distribution, we believe that the DC act upon which the remaining individual cases are based is flawed,” said Sturm, Ruger President Stephen L. Sanetti.

“Whether by further appeal or by discovery of the facts of these remaining individuals’ cases, the manufacturers should ultimately prevail.”

The court dismissed identical claims by individual plaintiffs. The court said the District could not sue under the District’s unique absolute liability statute, but that the individual plaintiffs could (the District, as a subrogee, could recover statutorily defined unreimbursed healthcare expenses incurred in treating the individual plaintiffs).

“We are pleased that yet another appellate court has found that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold quality firearms under theories of negligence or public nuisance. We are, however, disappointed the court failed to fully appreciate the unconstitutional nature of the District’s ‘absolute liability’ statute which achieves the same impermissible result by automatically imposing liability on manufacturers when a criminal misuses a firearm within the District, regardless for example of whether the firearm was stolen from a lawful owner,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.