Suit against gunmaker can proceed

NEWTOWN — In a victory for the 10 families that brought a wrongful death claim against the maker of the assaultstyle weapon used in the Sandy Hook massacre, they are headed for trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Remington, the arms manufacturer.

“The families are grateful that the Supreme Court upheld precedent and denied Remington’s latest attempt to avoid accountability,” said Josh Koskoff, the lead attorney for the families, in a prepared statement. “We are ready to resume discovery and proceed toward trial in order to shed light on Remington’s profitdriven strategy to expand the AR15 market and court highrisk users at the expense of Americans’ safety.”

Nicole Hockley, the mother of a firstgrader who was slain in the massacre, is among the family members suing Remington.

“Thank you US Supreme Court for allowing the Remington lawsuit to progress!” Hockley tweeted. “Hope we can change their sales and marketing processes as a result!”

At stake is whether the nation’s oldest gunmaker can be held liable for the worst shooting crime in modern Connecticut history, or whether Remington is protected under a federal law that shields the industry from most liability when its firearms are criminally misused.

The case springs from the slayings on Dec.14, 2012, when a gunman shot his way into a locked elementary school with an AR15style rifle and killed 20 firstgraders and six educators,

Remington appealed a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in March.

That 43 state Supreme Court ruling in March made national headlines, because it overturned a lower court ruling that threw out the families’ wrongful death case and returned the case to trial court.

The split decision, reached after 16 months of deliberation in Connecticut Supreme Court, cleared the way for what experts said was highly improbable: bringing a gunmaker to trial over the criminal misuse of a firearm.

While it remains the burden of the 10 families to convince a jury that Remington is liable more so than the disturbed gunman who took his mother’s rifle from an unlocked closet — the high court’s decision to

reinstate the case in trial court bolstered the families’ argument.

They claim gunmakers can be liable if they are recklessly negligent in mar

keting militarygrade weapons to civilians.

The state Supreme Court’s 43 ruling came two years after a state Superior Court judge threw out the families’ suit on grounds that Remington was shielded from liability in federal law.