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

[Jim Lane]

25. A manufacturer -- of cars, or guns, or furniture -- can be held liable for design defects

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Ikea case, but from what I found in a quick look it's consistent with the general principle that I stated in #14:

The manufacturer can be held liable for a defect in the design or manufacture of the product if the defect causes death or injury. The manufacturer cannot be held liable if the death or injury occurs because someone else negligently or intentionally uses the product in a way that causes the death or injury.

It appears from this article that the plaintiffs' theory against Ikea was design defect:

The families brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the company, alleging that Ikea "had consistently refused to meet voluntary national safety standards" and "refused to re-design its furniture products to be more stable and tip-resistant," according to the family's lawyers.

My understanding of the PLCAA is that a gun manufacturer, like Ikea, is still liable for injury caused by a design defect. For example, suppose there's a gun that can go off accidentally even if the safety is engaged, because the safety wasn't properly designed so as to fulfill its function of preventing such discharges. A person injured as a result of this defect would still have a valid cause of action against the manufacturer. The PLCAA does not confer a sweeping immunity that would protect the manufacturer.

Here's the problem: If the gun is designed in such a way that the user, by disengaging the safety and then pulling the trigger, can cause a bullet to be fired that kills someone, that's not a design defect. That's what the damn thing is supposed to do. And if it's an AR-15 or the like, and instead of firing "a bullet" it fires a murderous stream, well, that's also not a design defect. That's inherent in the nature of the product, just as it's inherent in the nature of automobiles that someone can intentionally or negligently drive one into a crowd and cause death or injury.

Design defect depends in part on technology. For example, there are industrial machines that can cause injury to the workers using them. There are some such injuries that, at one time, would not have left the manufacturer liable. If a worker sticks his hand into the machine while it's running, and is injured, there was nothing the manufacturer could do about it. More recently, however, engineers have developed interlock mechanisms. The area where the worker has to reach in to clear a jam can be protected by a door. The door can't be opened if the machine is on, and the machine can't be turned back on unless the door is closed. If the state of the art, as of the time the machine was manufactured, was that such interlock mechanisms were available, then the manufacturer can be held liable for not incorporating one, even if a worker injured by an older machine would have no case.

For guns, there's simply no mechanism the manufacturer can install that will prevent a robber from using a gun to hold up a liquor store but still allow the liquor store clerk to use his own gun in self-defense.

Most of the gun control we need can't come from the courts. Congress should just ban things like AR-15s.