Gun Ruling To Have National Impact
 
 

                            Updated 10:29 AM ET April 27, 2001

  By JOEL STASHENKO, Associated Press Writer

  ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - A ruling by the state's top court that gun
  makers can't be held liable for shooting deaths and injuries
  because of their marketing practices is certain to have an impact
  on dozens of such cases nationwide, lawyers say.

  The Court of Appeals's decision Thursday also probably dooms
  a $4 million federal court award to a New York City man who
  was left permanently disabled at age 15 when he was shot by a
  friend in 1994.

  Gun makers said the unanimous decision will set an example for
  judges across the country hearing about three dozen similar
  cases.

  "It's an important decision, both from the standpoint of New
  York state law and from the standpoint of national litigation
  raising similar issues," said attorney Lawrence Greenwald, who
  represented Beretta USA and American Arms.

  Lawyers for shooting victims said the decision presents
  attorneys with a blueprint on how to successfully pursue other
  cases along the same legal grounds.

  "We didn't reach the destination today, but the decision gives us
  guidance how to get there," said lawyer Marc Elovitz, who
  represented Stephen Fox of the New York City borough of
  Queens and his family. "It was a road map and not a dead end."

  Fox and the relatives of six people killed by handguns won a
  verdict against gun makers in federal court in Brooklyn in 1999.

  Beretta USA, American Arms and another gun maker, Taurus
  International Manufacturing, were assessed damages of up to
  $272,000.

  Gun makers were found liable in the six other instances, but no
  monetary damages were awarded in those cases.

  The federal appeals court reviewing the verdicts at the urging of
  the manufacturers had asked the New York Court of Appeals
  whether state laws support the finding of negligence in such a
  gun violence case.

  Writing for the court, Judge Richard Wesley said lawyers for
  the gunshot victims alluded to "broad" and "general" ways that
  gun manufacturers are liable for handgun injuries, but they failed
  to show specifically how their sales and marketing led to their
  guns getting into the wrong hands.

  A "more tangible" direct link is needed to show how the gun
  makers contributed to the injuries of gunshot victims and that the
  manufacturers "were realistically in a position to prevent the
  wrongs," Wesley wrote.

  Wesley explicitly ended his ruling by noting that a different
  marketing negligence claim involving a different set of
  circumstances might well win the next time around.

  Chicago and Bridgeport, Conn., are among about two dozen
  municipalities that have sued gun manufacturers over the cost of
  crimes and injuries caused by handguns. In addition, about 10
  shooting victims or their survivors are pursuing negligence suits
  against gun makers, Greenwald said.