Sandy Hook vic­tims’ fam­i­lies to ar­gue case in court

The Gulf Today - - Americas -

HART­FORD: Con­necti­cut’s high­est court is set to hear ar­gu­ments on Tues­day in a closely watched case brought by the fam­i­lies of the vic­tims of the 2012 Sandy Hook El­e­men­tary School shoot­ing against the maker of the as­sault rile used by the killer.

The fam­i­lies of nine of the vic­tims and one sur­vivor have said man­u­fac­turer Rem­ing­ton Arms Com­pany Inc, along with a gun whole­saler and lo­cal re­tailer, should be held re­spon­si­ble for the car­nage at the New­town, Con­necti­cut, school be­cause they mar­keted the weapon based on its mil­i­taris­tic ap­peal.

It is a some­what novel le­gal ar­gu­ment the fam­i­lies hope will help them over­come a fed­eral law en­acted by US Congress in 2005 to shield gun man­u­fac­tur­ers from li­a­bil­ity for how their prod­ucts are used.

Rem­ing­ton did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment. In court il­ings, the com­pany has said the fam­i­lies’ claims, irst iled in 2014, are barred by the 2005 law.

A lower court judge agreed with the gun maker and dis­missed the fam­i­lies’ law­suit in 2016. But the Con­necti­cut Supreme Court agreed to hear the case a week af­ter the fam­i­lies iled their irst ap­peal.

Adam Lanza, 20, used a Rem­ing­ton Ar-15bush­mas­ter­rile,asemi-au­to­matic civil­ian ver­sion of the US mil­i­tary’s M-16, to kill 20 school­child­ren be­tween the ages of 6 and 7, as well as six adult staff mem­bers.

The fam­i­lies claim Rem­ing­ton and the other de­fen­dants “ex­tolled the mil­i­taris­tic and as­saultive qual­i­ties” of the AR-15, advertising the rile as “mis­sion-adapt­able” and “the ul­ti­mate com­bat weapons sys­tem” in a de­lib­er­ate pitch to a de­mo­graphic of young men fas­ci­nated by the mil­i­tary.

The fam­i­lies said Lanza was part of that de­mo­graphic and cited me­dia re­ports say­ing he pre­vi­ously ex­pressed a de­sire to join the army. The rile was bought by Lanza’s mother, whom he also killed, as a gift for him or for the two of them to share, the law­suit claims.

The fam­i­lies’ ar­gu­ment is based on the le­gal doc­trine of neg­li­gent en­trust­ment, in which a prod­uct is care­lessly sold or given to a per­son at high risk of us­ing it in a harm­ful way. Neg­li­gent en­trust­ment is speci­ically ex­cepted from the 2005 gun maker shield laws.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Bahrain

© PressReader. All rights reserved.