By Joseph P. Tartaro | Executive Editor
The Connecticut Supreme Court on March 14 by a narrow 4-3 vote reversed a ruling by a lower court judge dismissing a lawsuit by the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington Arms Company and others in the industry, thus allowing the case to proceed to trial.
The high court decision remands the long-running gun case back to Bridgeport, CT, Superior Court and possibly creates a path that other mass shooting victims can follow to get around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA), which has so far protected the manufacturers of the AR-15 assault rifle and other guns from lawsuits.
According to the Hartford Courant the ruling paves the way for the families to subpoena internal documents on how the gun companies have marketed the AR-15, which has been used by the assailants in several mass murders.
The court ruled that the Sandy Hook families should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
In the Sandy Hook shooting, 20-year-old Adam Lanza used the AR-15, which he stole from his mother to kill her and 26 other people, including 20 first graders and educators, at the Sandy Hook School.
A Superior Court judge in Bridgeport had dismissed the lawsuit in 2016, agreeing with attorneys for Remington that the lawsuit “falls squarely within the broad immunity” provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the PLCCA. The lawsuit originally filed in 2015 by nine families of victims, as well as a teacher who was injured in the shooting, also named Camfour Holding LLP, the gun’s distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales Inc., the East Windsor gun shop where Nancy Lanza purchased the AR-15 right around her son’s 18th birthday.
The justices ruled that while Judge Barbara Bellis was correct in dismissing the lawsuit based on PLCAA, she was incorrect not to let the case proceed on the CUTPA allegations.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, called the decision “a ‘wow’ moment in American legal history.’’
Blumenthal predicted the Sandy Hook case could have a similar outcome to the 46-state lawsuit he helped lead as Connecticut attorney general against the tobacco industry. Damaging revelations about cigarette companies learned during the discovery phase of the case helped drive a $246 billion settlement
While Remington officials had not commented on the ruling as TGM went to press, many legal experts say it would be surprising if the company didn’t appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, according to The Courant.
Legal experts said the case will come down to how the state Supreme Court will interpret two possible exceptions allowed under the arms act — whether Remington can be held liable for so-called “negligent entrustment” or whether it violated the CUTPA. Negligent entrustment is defined as “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”
