Why shouldnt the gun industry be liable for damage done by its products, just like anybody else?

[Jim Lane]

18. My point is that gun makers DON'T get special protection --

Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

at least, not in the sense that's being incorrectly assumed by many DUers.

The general statement: A corporation (call it Manufacturer) produces a Product which a person (call him or her Tortfeasor) uses in such a way as to injure another person (Victim). It's not a case where Product had a defect (an auto ignition that occasionally turns itself on, or a gun that can be fired even with the safety engaged). Instead, the injury occurred solely because of Tortfeasor's negligence or intent to harm Victim.

On those facts, should Manufacturer be liable to Victim because Product played a role in the injury?

Under current law, the answer to that question is No, regardless of whether Product was a gun or an automobile (or, for that matter, a bathtub).

Some people here want to answer that question Yes if Product was a gun but No for all (or almost all) other Products. People advocating those policies are the ones seeking special treatment of gun manufacturers. The PLCAA was enacted because people with that point of view were bringing numerous lawsuits, trying to use the courts to accomplish what they could not accomplish through legislation.

That doesn't mean the PLCAA is perfect. It's hardly news -- and hardly unique to the gun issue -- that, when a statute is enacted to address one situation, lawyers facing different situations set to work and try to find loopholes, ambiguities, questionable interpretations, unintended consequences, etc. It's quite possible that the PLCAA should be tightened up to deal with some such cases. The hypothetical you raise, about a cosmetic change that improves safety at little or no cost, might be an example. The basic point of PLCAA, however, is sound: Pending the enactment of sensible gun control legislation (which I favor), gun manufacturers should not be singled out for liability just because someone misuses one of their products.

You write, "You were quick to point out how inaccurate the post you responded to was, then fail to explain your point entirely." You're quite correct. I couldn't explain my point entirely and said so: "Without my giving you a complete treatise on products liability -- and there are entire books on the subject...." If you want a more thorough exposition of the law of products liability, the New York State Bar Association is offering a two-volume treatise with a total of 1,175 pages. Of course, that's just as to New York law. To analyze legislation with nationwide impact, I'd need to do further reading to take account of differences among the states. Then I'd have to try to summarize my findings in a DU-post-sized message. Sorry, but I'll have to pass.