HARTFORD, Conn.-Gun control advocates are asking the Connecticut Supreme Court for permission to argue against a judge's decision last year to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Newtown school shooting, saying the ruling would set a bad precedent.
State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled in October that the lawsuit filed by some of the Newtown victims' families against Remington Arms wasn't allowed because of a federal law that shields gun makers from liability, in most cases, when their products are used in crimes. Remington, based in Madison, North Carolina, made the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
A survivor of the attack and the families of nine killed are appealing that ruling to the state Supreme Court in a case that centers on the few exceptions to the federal law. The suit seeks to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers call a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine.
Gun control advocates recently asked the high court for permission to file briefs in the case, hoping to persuade the justices to reverse a potentially precedent-setting decision that could be used by gun makers to fend off lawsuits filed under the exceptions to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
"The trial court broadly and improperly interpreted the law to provide far greater protection for irresponsible gun companies than Congress ever intended," said Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The Brady Center is among a variety of groups seeking to file friend-of-the-court briefs. Others include The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and CT Against Gun Violence, along with doctors, law school professors and school superintendents. The number of organizations seeking to file briefs is unusually high for a state Supreme Court case.
At issue are two of the six exceptions to the federal law. One allows lawsuits alleging "negligent entrustment," when companies know, or should know, when supplying their firearms to others that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others. The other allows slawuits alleging manufacturers knowingly violated a state or federal law that applies to the sale or marketing of firearms.
The lawsuit against Remington cites those two exceptions. It says Remington should have known its Bushmaster rifle was dangerous when it marketed and sold it, and that the company violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by marketing and selling a rifle that was used to harm people.
Judge Bellis sided with Remington. She ruled that negligent entrustment didn't apply, in part, because none of the defendants had any direct dealings with Newtown school shooter Adam Lanza, whose mother legally bought the rifle. Lanza killed his mother, Nancy, before going to the school, where he also killed himself.
Lowy said the judge's ruling was out of line with other court decisions that say there does not need to be a direct connection with a gun user.
Lawyers for Remington disagree and say the company is shielded from liability under the federal law.
Gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court should not overturn Bellis' ruling.
"The Superior Court judge made the proper decision in dismissing this case and issued a very detailed opinion," said Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group based that happens to be based in Newtown.
The legal landscape of suing firearms manufacturers has been mixed, with some lawsuits failing and others succeeding.
Judges have cited the federal law in rejecting lawsuits gun makers and dealers in some high-profile shooting attacks, including the Colorado theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings.
In November, a Missouri gun dealer agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a wrongful-death suit brought in connection with a fatal shooting, after that state's Supreme Court rejected the dealer's argument that the 2005 federal law was intended to prevent such lawsuits. The Brady Center said the settlement was the largest since the law was enacted.