D.C. SNIPER SLAYINGS LEAD TO FIRST SETTLEMENT AGAINST GUN
Two years ago, snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo murdered a dozen people in the Washington, D.C., area and injured several more. Muhammad has since been sentenced to death and Malvo to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The consequences of this tragedy have extended beyond the victims and their families and now include new efforts by shooting victims to recover from the gun industry. In mid- September of this year, two survivors and the families of six slain victims of the 2002 sniper shootings reached a $2.5 million settlement with Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the rifle used during the attacks, and Bull’s Eye, the gun shop where it was stolen.
Bushmaster’s insurer contributed $550,000 to the settlement while Bull’s Eye’s insurer agreed to pay $2 million. Bushmaster also agreed to educate its distributors on gun safety. Bushmaster’s counsel stated the settlement was for economic reasons and that Bushmaster has not admitted liability on any of the plaintiffs’ allegations. According to counsel for the victims, this settlement marks the first time that a gun manufacturer has paid damages for crimes committed with its weapons. The victims alleged that Bull’s Eye failed to keep track of its inventory. Federal records showed that in the three years prior to the sniper killings, the store lost track of 238 weapons, although many of these weapons were subsequently traced. More than 50 Bull’s Eye guns were linked to criminal acts from 1997 to 2001. Bushmaster, the manufacturer, was charged with negligent distribution because it continued to supply Bull’s Eye, the retailer, despite the store’s poor inventory management.
Is a similar lawsuit possible in Minnesota? Statutory analysis suggests the answer is "yes." Minnesota’s laws on firearm sales are stricter than the national average but it is still possible for a gun manufacturer to be found liable on a legal theory similar to that alleged in the Bull’s Eye/Bushmaster case. State law bans selling firearms to juveniles under 18 and requires buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check to get a permit (unless the firearm is purchased from a private individual.) Retail firearms’ purchasers must also obtain a permit from local law enforcement and undergo a background check.
These statutes create interesting legal issues for gun manufacturers and their insurers. In the absence of any statutes criminalizing certain types of firearms sales, negligence claims against gun manufacturers are analyzed with a generic negligence analysis, i.e. was Manufacturer A negligent in permitting Distributor X to sell Manufacturer A’s guns? If Distributor X makes an illegal sale under one of Minnesota’s gun control statutes, however, such as by selling a handgun to a seventeenyear- old, the gun manufacturer paradoxically is in a stronger legal position because the gun shop’s criminal act likely constitutes a superseding cause of the victim’s loss. A gun manufacturer that successfully establishes a superseding cause is entitled to dismissal of any negligence claims against it. The gun distributor, of course, is in a worse position. Because dismissal of the gun manufacturer reduces the funding available for settlement or payment of a verdict, it is even possible that future cases against the gun industry may focus more on breach of warranty and strict liability claims than on negligence.
Whether the D.C. sniper settlement is an isolated occurrence or the beginning of a national trend is open to debate. The attorneys at ACKS&P will be sure to keep you informed as these issues develop.
About the Author : Doug is an associate in the Commercial Litigation and Appellate Groups at Arthur Chapman. His practice emphasizes both plaintiff’s and defendant’s work in complex areas of the law, including products liability, intellectual property, and professional liability. Doug was recently named a Rising Star by Minnesota Law & Politics. Before joining the firm, Doug served as a law clerk to Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and Judge Thomas Wexler of the Hennepin County District Court. During law school, Doug was a Student Articles Editor on Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory & Practice, and was Editor-in-Chief of The Source, the law school newspaper.