More Stupid Lawsuits
Last night, I read with disdain an AP story that
reported a pending lawsuit filed against the gun
manufacturer and store linked to the Bushmaster
XM15 assault rifle used in the Washington D.C.-area
sniper attacks. What is it about our litigious
society that we feel justified in suing any person
or corporation even remotely connected to any
tortious conduct? I've spent an entire semester
exploring the concepts of negligence in tort law,
and I confess I'm no closer to understanding the
rationale behind such lawsuits.
The lawsuit alleges that the offending weapon
was used in the sniper attacks less than three
months after it was purchased. The plaintiffs'
attorney said, "Such a swift 'time to crime' is
highly indicative of grossly negligent sales and
distribution practices on the part of Bull's Eye
[the retail store] and the gun industry
defendant." Huh? By that logic, the store would be
more culpable if a person bought a gun legally and
immediately used it to commit murder than if a
purchaser waited a year and then committed murder.
Just how can a store be held liable in the first
place, when it is engaged in the legal sale of
firearms and follows the law with regard to such
sales?
Such tort lawsuits continue to baffle me, even
with a smattering of legal education under my belt.
Thus, I thought it appropriate to reprint an
editorial that I wrote on this subject a few years
ago. If you have an opinion on this topic, I'd love
to hear
it.
Don't Tread on
Me—or I'll Sue
Los Angeles Times
November 13, 1999
My optometrist gave me the wrong prescription
for my new glasses, so I'm going to sue Bazzato.
That's the maker of the eyeglass frames. It's their
fault, right? In fact, while I'm at it, I should
file a lawsuit against Ford over that scratch in my
car's paint that appeared last time I went to the
car wash. They're definitely liable. Oh, and that
money I lost in Vegas last summer? The casino's
fault.
If you're chuckling about now, let me ask you
this: does it sound any less irresponsible to sue a
gun maker because two crazed teenagers went on a
shooting rampage? Or to blame a tobacco company for
the death of a loved one who made the choice to
inhale smoke into his lungs for forty years? Every
time I hear of such lawsuits, I shake my head in
disbelief. Yet in many courtrooms in America,
millions of tax dollars are being spent arguing
cases that would be thrown out in a New York minute
if Common Sense were the Law of the Land.
In November of last year, the family of a
teenager killed by another boy with a Beretta sued
the gun manufacturer for "negligence." Without
knowing the facts of the case, I would agree that
negligence caused the kid's death. However, I would
say it was the boy who did the killing, as well as
the parents who weren't around, who were negligent.
Fortunately, the jury in that case had some common
sense and dismissed the suit.
Dennis Hennigan, of the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence, can't be accused of having common
sense, however. Hennigan recently called gun
manufacturers "...a very secretive industry that
markets a very lethal product." Well, isn't that
the point? If I were purchasing a handgun for home
protection, I wouldn't want the "non-lethal"
model.
And it was reported in today's news that
impending lawsuits have forced 144-year-old gun
maker Colt Manufacturing to stop selling handguns
to consumers. The company's post-Civil War slogan
was once "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but
Sam Colt made them equal." If you favor these new
lawsuits, however, then you'll agree that men who
used Colt firearms to commit violence were not
free; Colt made them do it, and should therefore be
punished.
Such misplaced blame seems outrageous; but in
the wake of successful tobacco lawsuits, it's not
hard to see how such litigation can find support.
Somewhere along the way, courts—and by
extension the Americans who served on the
juries—have forgotten about the meaning of
accountability and personal responsibility. These
days, murderers no longer act alone; they share the
blame with the parents who abused them, the drug
dealer who doped them up, and the gun manufacturer
who pulled the trigger. But hey, why stop there?
Blame Hanes for making the killer's underwear too
tight, Right Guard for failing to control his body
odor and McDonald's for selling him the Big Mac
that pushed him over the edge.
I used to smoke cigarettes. I did not need a
government study or a press release from the
tobacco company to tell me that a) drawing smoke
into my lungs hundreds of times a day was hazardous
to my health; and b) every time I got a "nicotine
fit," it meant I was addicted and needed my "fix."
If I come down with lung cancer, I'll kick myself,
I'll curse my own stupidity, I'll wish I had never
smoked that first cigarette. And I'll be blaming
the right person. It was my own free will that made
me smoke.
Similarly, if a loved one were gunned down
tomorrow by a crazed lunatic, I would blame the
criminal, I would push strenuously for his death
sentence, I might even be tempted to take the law
into my own hands. But how on Earth could I make
the mental leap to blame the manufacturer of the
legal weapon that the criminal used illegally? I'm
sure that gun makers have also built countless guns
that have saved lives—but you rarely hear
about those cases.
As a nation, we are quickly abandoning
responsibility for our actions. Unlike the
vulnerable child who grows up and learns to fend
for itself, Americans are learning not to fend for
themselves. If we injure ourselves, it's not our
fault; if someone else hurts us, it's not their
fault. The legal precedent being set by this spate
of lawsuits is that no one is accountable for his
or her actions; it's Big Government and Corporate
America's job to protect everyone from
everything.
Our national motto used to be "Don't tread on
me." It should be updated for the twenty-first
century to read "Don't tread on me—or I'll sue
the maker of your shoes."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
