Rifle Makers Settle in D.C. Sniper Case

[Nambe]

SEATTLE (AP)

The manufacturer and dealer of the rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings agreed Wednesday to pay $2.5 million in a settlement with victims and victims' families.

The settlement with Bushmaster marks the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, said Jon Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He helped argue the case. He said the settlement with Bull's Eye Shooter Supply is the largest against a gun dealer.

The civil lawsuit alleged that at least 238 guns, including the snipers' rifle, disappeared from the gun shop in the three years before the shooting rampage. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns, Bushmaster continued to use the shop as a dealer and provided it with as many guns as the owners wanted, the lawsuit alleged.

"It appears that 17-year-old Malvo was able to stroll into this gun store and stroll out carrying a 3-foot-long, $1,000 Bushmaster assault rifle," Lowy said. "Bull's Eye should have taken reasonable care to prevent guns from being stolen. Bushmaster should have required Bull's Eye to implement simple, reasonable security measures." ..

A bill was proposed in Congress earlier this year that would have given the firearms industry immunity from lawsuits such as this one. Despite strong support from President Bush, it died in the Senate.

[skippythwndrdog]

1. What a load!

This is right up there with suing God for making mountains steep and water deep enough to drown in.

Actually, the 2.5 is probably cheaper right now than paying the attorneys to fight the case. It will cost a ton more in the future.

[LisaL]

2. Well, if God had money

I am sure a lot of people would be suing God.
As for gun manufacturers, if people are killed with their products-they should giddy up and pay up.

[skippythwndrdog]

3. Using that logic, there won't be

a knifemaker, auto maker, baseball bat maker, or manufacturer of anything else that's used to harm others solvent in a short time.

Let's go for the money! Forget personal responsibility. Put the blame where it lies: on the shooters for the theft and following attacks.

This is right up there with "McDonalds made me fat." No, your lack of self control (except in the relatively rare cases of genetic predisposition) made you fat.

[Sandpiper]

5. Nice Red Herring argument

But, knives are for cutting, cars are for driving, baseball bats are for baseball, and guns are for...

shooting and killing.

The primary purpose of a firearm is instrument of death.

[NickB79]

8. Yep, shooting and killing

Just like knives are for cutting...what exactly? Hmm, maybe other people?

The primary purpose of a firearm, at least in the US, is for hunting and for self-defense. Both of these, last time I checked, were perfectly legal.

[Sandpiper]

6. Yeah, heaven forbid

We hold negligent distributors of instruments of death liable for the damage their products cause.

[NickB79]

9. That would be a wonderful thing

Only in this case, Bushmaster was not acting in a negligent way. They sold a perfectly legal, perfectly functional product to a distributor, who THEN sold it to the gun dealer, who THEN let it "disappear" from his shop. Bushmaster broke no laws or in any way acted negligent, because Bushmaster, like almost all other gun manufacturers, does not sell guns directly to gun shops.

The best you could argue for negligence is that the distributor should be held responsible, and even that could be a stretch. The gun shop owner would be a slam dunk case, but I'm guessing he probably didn't have much money to his name to be a tasty target for a lawsuit.

[AP]

12. A cursory review of the article quoted above contradicts your post.

Apparently, due to the BATF keeping records, the manufacturer knew that 238 of their guns were "lost or stolen" from this distributor, but they did nothing to limit the supply of guns to an obviously incompetent distributor. They kept giving them more guns.

It looks like the manufacturer settled because they thought a jury might find that a wee bit negligent.

[pinniped]

15. If the manufacturer "knew" about the 238 missing guns...

and continued to conduct business they share some liability. But this paragraph isn't really crystal clear. I think the author of the article wanted the reader to make the connection on his or her own. Had the atf informed Bushmaster of the missing inventory I would expect it to be clearly stated in the article. That would be the smoking gun IMO.

So if atf told them...definitely guilty

If atf didn't inform them...maybe not guilty

I'll try to find another article and we can get to the bottom of this....

------The civil lawsuit alleged that at least 238 guns, including the snipers' rifle, disappeared from the gun shop in the three years before the shooting rampage. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns, Bushmaster continued to use the shop as a dealer and provided it with as many guns as the owners wanted, the lawsuit alleged.------

Edit

Mostly all of the other Bushmaster articles are the AP version.

Here is a different one from Seattle:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/190050_dcsniper09.html?source=rss

------Through Bushmaster's Seattle attorneys, Kelly Corr and Steve Fogg, the company said it had no way of knowing the two men now convicted in the sniper spree would steal one of its rifles from Bull's Eye.------

From this paragraph it sounds like they didn't know Bull's Eye had a missing inventory problem. Or at least no one is admitting it if they did know.

[AP]

16. Before settling for 2.5 mil, I'm sure the manufacturer apprised themselves

of the situation, which included realizing that they knew or should have know about the BATF report on those missing guns. If that info was available to the author of the article, it was definitely going to be available to a jury, since the journalist didn't have 2.5 mil at stake when he was collecting facts for the article. In fact, I doubt the journalist did anything more for the article than read through the complaint (and possibly the response) -- both of which, if filed, are public records and are available from the court.

[pinniped]

18. Still, I would expect a more precise statement from the AP...

pertaining to that line in question.

Either way, no question that Bushmaster should be held liable if they knew about the 238 missing guns. To continue dishing out guns that you know would reach that dealer thru your network would be totally wreckless and irresponsible.

Have a nice day.:)

[AP]

19. I think it's safe to say that there's no way that this reporter knew about

those BATF numbers unless they were in the complaint, and I think it's safe to say that the lawyers bringing a 2.5 mil claim know more about the facts and have done more research than an underpaid AP reporter.

So, if you assume that's the case, then the question is, did Bushmaster think that evidence was so compelling that they'd settler for 2.5 mil rather than go to trial? And the answer is yes, they did settle (and I'm sure they either knew about the BATF data or they should have known about it at the time they were selling guns, or they wouldn't have settled for that much).

[NickB79]

22. So the BATF knew 238 guns were missing

But didn't close down the gun dealer's store? Again, what do our tax dollars being used for again? I thought that was the very point of the BATF, to CLOSE DOWN CROOKED GUN DEALERS!

[gospelized]

4. .

this is irrelevant, but i've always found the term "d.c. sniper" annoying.

only one of the shootings were in dc. i live in richmond, va, which is hours from dc, and one of the shootings was about 10 minutes from where i live. most of them were in fredricksburg, va and arlington, va and some of them were even further south.

no idea why that annoys me.

[laconicsax]

7. The suit against the dealer is legit

the suit against Bushmaster is borderline crap. Even though they were clearly wrong in providing the dealer with the rifles. It sets a precedent that if someone uses a gun in a crime, the manufacturer is responsible for the improper use of their product.

If someone decides to buy a handgun, goes through all of the security checks, gets the gun and at some point it's stolen and used in a crime, or even used by the owner in a crime, then it's clearly the gunmaker's fault--right? I mean after all, they made the gun and sold it legally to a dealer who sold it to someone legally and if they hadn't made it, then none of this would have happened.

By the same reasoning, a brewer, supermarket or liquor store, and car manufacturer and dealer should be held liable if someone buys a case of beer, gets trashed and then drives drunk and kills someone. After all, had the brewer not made the beer and the store hadn't sold it, then the guy wouldn't have gotten drunk, nor would he have been able to drive if the car maker hadn't made the car or shipped it to a dealer, and if the dealer hadn't sold it originally.

The problem is that businesses should not be held liable for misuse of a product they make or sell if the product is legal and the sale is legal. Their acocuntability needs to end there. Holding them responsible is no different than a shop owner being arrested for supporting terrorism if someone linked to al Qaida walks into their store, buys a newspaper and leaves.

[pinniped]

11. I agree, the suit against the sloppy dealer was 100% legit.

But why did atf not revoke the dude's federal firearms license? Does one have to misplace 300 guns until they take action?

I think he or his employees were selling guns out the backdoor. No way could that many thousands of dollars of inventory disappear without him knowing about it. His only legitimate excuse would be if Arthur Anderson did his accounting.

I think Bushmaster could've beaten this in a courtroom.

[AP]

17. Here's something you might find is worth reading:

Products liability is the area of tort law that deals with a manufacturer's or seller's liability for injuries suffered by a purchaser, user, or bystander as a result of a defective product. Products liability may involve products ranging from the low-tech, such as pajamas, to the high-tech, such as antilock brakes. Products liability is premised on the principle that a person who introduces a product into the stream of commerce owes a duty of care, not only to the person who first purchases the product, but also to anyone else who might foreseeably come into contact with it.

...

In states that do not impose strict liability for defective products, an injured person can recover for injuries caused by a defective product if they can show that the manufacturer was negligent, or breached a warranty. Negligence means that the manufacturer or seller did not act with reasonable care to ensure the safety of the product.

...


http://www.inc.com/articles/2000/02/17249.html

[AP]

13. I think the precedent this sets is that if you know your distributor...

...is putting your product into a stream of use that might be illegal and could cause serious harm, you can't do nothing.

Thus, guns are being treated no differently than any other product on the marketplace.

If you have a product that could be a problem for someone down the stream of commerce, everyone up the stream can be responsible for damages.

"Legallit" of a sale isn't the issue. Almost all litigation relating to a dangerous or defective product arrises from a legal sale. The issue is whether you have a defective or dangerous product and whether you had a duty to the person who was injured which you breached. I think a manufacturer who sells to a distributor who then loses a ton of your products to thieves and the manufacturer knows about it has a duty to do something greater than simply ignore the problem. The manufacturere ignored the problem because it made the mnfg'er money. Well, this is what happens in cases like that. The money gets redistributed to the person harmed by your greed.

[NickB79]

10. What do my tax dollars pay for again?

"Bushmaster should have required Bull's Eye to implement simple, reasonable security measures."

Do they mean things like a background check and minimum age of purchase? Last time I checked, those were FEDERAL requirements, and the BATF was the one in charge of enforcing those laws. What exactly do our tax dollars do at the BATF if they aren't out enforcing laws on the books?

[AP]

14. They were checking. That's how Bushmaster knew about the problem.

That's why the civil case was so easy to make. I don't know what the BATF does when this stuff happens. They probably are allowed to issue a small fine. But they're probably not allowed to tell the parties that they can no longer conduct business with each other. That's where the civil law stepped in.

[Pert_UK]

20. This is totally arse backwards....WTF????

The manufacturer gets sued for continuing to supply a dealership with a proven track record of losing guns....

Why the fuck didn't the authorities close this clown-shop down???

How about, "Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns, the ATF consistently failed to shut the place down."

Insane. Now manufacturers have to enforce the law and standards of every dealer they use?


"Bushmaster should have required Bull's Eye to implement simple, reasonable security measures" - why? Would Ford be at fault if one of their dealerships decided to plant bombs in every car before they sold it? No. It's the lax standards at the dealership and the inaction from the ATF that was the problem here, but as somebody pointed out, this settlement is really cheap for Bushmaster, so is probably the easiest option.

P.

[jmowreader]

21. Interesting!

Would Ford be at fault if one of their dealerships decided to plant bombs in every car before they sold it?

Okay, let's push this one out a bit.

Armageddon Ford in Poughkeepsie, NY, plants bombs in every new Ford while they're preparing it for sale.

They only plant bombs in new cars.

Ford is made aware that Armageddon Ford is doing this but continues to sell them cars.

If someone buys a car from Armageddon and it kills my kid in the ensuing explosion, I'm gonna call John Edwards and he'll find out the weird relationship between these two entities.