Danforth mass shooting victims have right to sue gun maker, judge says
Proposed class-action lawsuit against Smith & Wesson clears ‘important and difficult hurdle’
A lawsuit making a “unique” allegation against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of victims of Toronto’s deadly 2018 Danforth shooting has got the green light to proceed to the next stage by Ontario’s Superior Court.
Released this week by Justice Paul Perell, the decision means the $150-million lawsuit filed in 2019 is one step closer to class-action certification, surmounting “an important and difficult hurdle” that could have seen the suit tossed from court, according to lawyer Malcolm Ruby.
In a 27-page written decision, Perell sides with a representative group of victims of the July 22, 2018, attack — including Samantha Price, who was shot in the hip — by upholding the right of an innocent gun-violence victim to sue the manufacturer of the gun.
“There are safer ways to make guns that prevent them from being used by unauthorized people, like the Danforth shooter,” said Ruby, who is representing the victims and families.
Ruby described the case as making a “unique” allegation deriving from what has become an “unfortunately all-toocommon occurrence.”
Lawyers for the Massachusetts-based company had argued the manufacturer bore no civil liability for the Danforth shooting, and asked for the legal action to be dismissed. A spokesperson for Smith & Wesson could not be reached for comment Friday. Lawyers for the gun manufacturer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gunman Faisal Hussain killed Reese Fallon, 18, and Julianna Kozis, 10 and injured 13 others when he opened fire onto a busy stretch of Danforth Avenue in Greektown on a warm summer night. He then fatally shot himself after exchanging gunfire with Toronto police.
He was armed with a Smith & Wesson .40-calibre semi-automatic handgun, a weapon that was reported stolen in 2016 after being legally acquired by a Saskatchewan gun shop.
In their lawsuit, six claimants, including Price’s parents Ken Smith and Claire Smith allege Smith & Wesson Corp. was negligent in the design and manufacture of its M&P (Military and Police) 40 series by failing to install “smart gun technology” that allows the gun to fire only when used by an authorized owner.
“A manufacturer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to reduce any risk to life and limb that may be inherent in its design,” wrote Perell.
The judge said it’s arguable that there came a time “when it was careless for Smith & Wesson not to utilize invented authorized user technology, of which there were many types, some of which Smith & Wesson invented and patented,” the judge wrote.
Price said he is pleased to see the court agree that Smith & Wesson “should be made to answer” for the absence of safety features on a lethal product.
“Our goal is to see Smith & Wesson held accountable for the tragedy that affected our families and to help avoid similar tragedies for other families in the future,” Price said.
Ruby commended his clients for their dedication to preventing gun violence from impacting other families. “They have the courage to take on this case, which is not an easy case,” he said.
Ruby expects the class-action certification phase will start in the coming months.