NCJ Number
153776
Journal
Trial Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: (February 1995) Pages: 50-52,54-55
Date Published
1995
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The extreme danger of firearms implies legal obligations for people who own or sell them; several court decisions have held gun owners and retailers liable when their conduct has endangered others by exposing them to injuries from firearms.
Abstract
About half of all U.S. households have a firearm, and one in four of these weapons is a handgun. Courts seem to be slowly fashioning a common law of accountability that recognizes the inherent danger of firearms justifies a higher standard of conduct. Many courts have permitted the recovery of damages by families of children victimized by people who store guns carelessly. Further, the extreme dangerousness of firearms has led some courts to articulate a higher standard of care for gun possession than for the possession of other potentially dangerous products. Courts have also found that gun owners may be liable for negligent storage, even though they place firearms in a relatively inaccessible place and instruct children to stay away from them. In addition, gun violence victims and their families have been successful in seeking damages from retailers who sell guns illegally or negligently. Past attempts by victims to hold gun manufacturers liable for violence have been unsuccessful, largely because plaintiffs tried to apply traditional product liability principles to claims that were not really product liability claims. In a series of recent California cases, however, gun violence victims are seeking to impose liability on the sale of guns and related products that have no legitimate use but are well-suited for violent criminal assault. Whether brought against gun owners, retailers, or manufacturers, victim litigation shares a common premise: that the danger of firearms implies important legal obligations for those who own or sell them. 29 notes