Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health (original) (raw)
2001, Texas Review of Law and Politics
I. INTRODUCTION1 The current assault on the gun industry started in late 1998 after Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell proposed that local city officials should sue the gun manufacturers to recover costs related to firearm violence in their cities2 Although Mayor Rendell put his plans for a lawsuit on hold,3 Mayor Marc Morial of New Orleans and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago ran with the idea, making New Orleans and Chicago the first two cities to file these novel lawsuits.4 To date, thirty-three similar lawsuits have been filed by governmental entities, with the most recent filings by New York City and the state of New York in June, 2000.5 Many cities could be awaiting the outcome of the cases already filed, so more lawsuits may follows.6 Lawsuits based on similar legal theories continue to be filed on behalf of private citizens as well.7 The most prominent private case to date, Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, was filed by attorney Elisa Barnes, who sued gun manufacturers on behalf of the rel...
Sign up to get access to over 50M papers
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Litigation, Mass Media, and the Campaign to Criminalize the Firearms Industry
2021
This article extends the co-authors' researches on mass media coverage of crusades against manufacturers and marketers of tobacco products in the United States to media coverage of similar crusades against manufacturers and marketers of firearms in the United States. The major contention of the article is that firearms-reformers have used civil suits and allied publicity outside courts to depict firearms producers and retailers as criminals. A major tactic that has unified reformers' efforts inside and outside courts is deployment of crimtorts, civil litigation for torts that includes elements of criminal prosecution. Crimtorts and publicity through entertainment media enabled opponents of firearms companies to lose case after case yet to damage the reputations or brands of firearms makers and marketers. The firearms interests fended off crusaders in civil action after civil action yet became portrayed as outright criminals owing mostly to crimtorts.
Journal of health care law and policy, 2000
In response to recent litigation brought against the gun industry on behalf of individuals and municipalities victimized as a result of the negligent marketing, design, and distribution of guns, the gun industry has argued that they cannot be held responsible for the victims' injuries because they have no "special relationship" with the victims. Without a "special relationship," gun manufacturers claim to have no duty whatsoever to design, market, or distribute guns in a reasonable fashion. This article examines the fallacies inherent in the gun industry's "special relationship" argument and discusses the factual, legal and policy grounds that support holding the gun industry responsible for its role in facilitating the misuse of guns.
Gun control after Heller: threats and sideshows from a social welfare perspective
UCLA L. Rev., 2008
What will happen after Heller? We know that the Supreme Court will no longer tolerate comprehensive federal prohibitions on home handgun possession by some class of trustworthy homeowners for the purpose of, and perhaps only at the time of, self-defense. But the judiciary could push further, if nothing else by incorporating Heller's holding into the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing it against states and municipalities. In fact, the majority opinion offered little guidance for future cases. It presented neither a purely originalist method of constitutional interpretation nor a constraining doctrinal framework for evaluating other regulation-even while it gratuitously suggested that much existing gun control is acceptable. In the absence of more information from the Court, we identify plausible legal arguments for the next few rounds of litigation and assess the stakes for social welfare.
Gun Control after Heller: Litigating against Regulation
2009
The “core right” established in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) is to keep an operable handgun in the home for self-defense purposes. If the Court extends this right to cover state and local jurisdictions, the result is likely to include the elimination of the most stringent existing regulations – such as Chicago’s handgun ban – and could also possibly ban regulations
Liability Insurance and Gun Violence
2014
Gun violence and mass shootings have dominated headlines during the last several years. These tragedies, including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, received national and international attention and prompted new demands to address gun violence in the United States. Among the many proposals advanced by the media, advocacy groups, legislators, and academics is mandating liability insurance for all gun owners. Proponents point to insurance's risk assessment and mitigation functions as providing financial incentives and penalties to encourage policyholders to purchase, store, and use firearms in the safest manner possible, with explicit analogies to mandatory auto insurance, and insurance generally, where prudent behavior results in lower premiums and the riskier pay more. Numerous legislative proposals were put forth in 2013; none passed. This Article's purpose is to provide a more in-depth scrutiny than has been previously presented on the merits of mandating liability insurance for gun owners. My perspective is through the-lens of liability insurance and regulation, and this Article thereby reviews the major issues associated with such proposals-including the likelihood that many defendants in gun-related claims will not carry insurance even if required by law. I conclude that, despite the obvious enforcement problems, insurance's ability to address and reduce gun violence is a potentially valuable tool. We do not have enough research and information to dismiss its use based on often ill-supported assumptions about what insurance "should" do and how consumers, insurers, and regulators would react to a liability insurance mandate.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.