On February 10, 2005, 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco published an opinion, In re Firearm Cases, in which it affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of several gun manufacturers in a group of lawsuits filed by local government entities. In a display of unity rarely found on other issues, several Northern and Southern California cities and counties filed a series of identical state court lawsuits against a group of gun manufacturers (including Gloch, Beretta, and Smith & Wesson) pursuant to the California's Unfair Competition Law (B&P, sec. 17200) and a nuisance statute (Civ. Code, sec. 3479). In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs essentially argued that the defendants were liable for their failure to police high-risk sales and advertising practices by gun dealers and retailers. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants failed to incorporate safety features into their guns and engaged in false advertising campaigns re: gun ownership increasing home safety (these latter issues were not raised on appeal).
On appeal, the First District affirmed the trial court's grant of a summary judgment motion in favor of the defendant manufacturers. The Court held that both UCL and nuisance claims require a showing of a causal connection between the alleged unlawful acts and the alleged harm. The court pointed out that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was proper because the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the defendants themselves engaged in any high-risk sales or manufacturing practices or that the defendants had any actual knowledge that the retailers engaged in such conduct.
In terms of public policy, the Court noted that while it was mindful of the harm created by gun violence, it would be equally dangerous to create vicarious liability under the Unfair Competition Law for gun manufacturers' otherwise lawful conduct without a showing the manufactuers' actual knowledge that the dealers / retailers engaged in illegal sales or marketing conduct . To illustrate this danger, the Court cited a 9th Circuit decision on a similar issue, in which a dissenting judge noted that holding a gun manufacturer liable for marketing a firearm that was later used to commit murder would be like holding GM liable for marketing the speed of its Corvette, which was later used by joy-riding juveniles to kill someone in a traffic accident. The Court also noted that requiring additional regulatory practices by the gun manufacturers to reduce the overall level of gun violence is a task better left to Legislature.
The really interesting thing about this case is that it does not mention the California Supreme Court's decision in Merrill v. Navegar, in which the California Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit by shooting victims against gun manufacturers, which raised similar issues. Apparently taking a hint from that decision, the plaintiffs here tried to avoid thorny causation issues by trying to present similar claims as "unfair business practices." In light of the trend to limit the expansive reach of the UCL (California voters passed an ill-advised UCL initiative last November), it is not surprising the Court here declined to adopt a broad interpretation of the law advocated by the plaintiffs. Plus, the Court is right - limiting and /or banning sales of some or all guns may be a great idea, but it should be done by Legislature.
Comments