In the great Gary gun case of 1999, by which the city attempts to hold manufacturers and sellers liable for the misuse of weapons, I think the best opinion was rendered by Lake Superior Court Judge James Richards, who dismissed the Gary case in 2001, saying the city "cannot fault businesses beyond its jurisdiction for the crimes committed by others." But a judge has resuscitated the case, ruling that a federal law aimed at shielding the manufacturers and dealers from liability is unconstitutional. There are a lot of issues at stake, including whether such a law can be made retroactive and whether an entire business enterprise can be shielded from the kind of lawsuits everybody else must face.
But the bedrock issue seems pretty easy to grasp: Either people are responsible for their actions, or they aren't. Certainly, as Gary alleges, "manufacturers and gun dealers sold handguns they knew would end up in the hands of criminals." Car makers and dealers also know some of their vehicles will end up in the hands of people who drive them with reckless abandon, and makers and sellers of alcohol know some of it will be consumed by spouse beaters. Anything can be misused, and if we make liability or such misuse a standard legal principle, the list of lawsuits will get very long, and the number of people willing to manufacture and provide anything will get very small.
Comments
I don't think it's quite that easy, because there is a victim who is going to be responsible for somebody else's action. You have the Gun Manufacturer selling to the Criminal who injures Victim.
So Victim is damaged by the use of the gun. In a perfect world, Criminal would have the means to go along with the obligation to pay for the damage done. But, we all know that Criminal is likely an empty hole. So, without anything more, the Victim is going to pay for the Criminal's act.
The real question is whether it is better policy for the Victim to pay for the Criminal's act or for the Gun Manufacturer to pay for the Criminal's act. Because somebody's going to pay, and it's not going to be the Criminal. For the reason's you point out, it's not an easy call to make the Gun Manufacturer pay; but I also don't think it's an easy call to make the Victim pay.
Well the victim sure as hell shouldn't have to pay and that is what is happening. If a criminal wants a gun bad enough they will find a way to get one. But people who sell guns should have to do a mandatory background check and have a waiting period. If you haven't done anything wrong and don't intend to you won't mind waiting for the gun if it may help prevent an innocent person from getting hurt or killed. Anyone who sells a gun without making the buyer go through the requirements should be held liable for a crime committed with the gun they sold. Then maybe we would have a little more accountability in this world where child molestors, rapists, robbers and other criminals get probation or very lenient sentences.
Doug says "I don't think it's quite that easy" - that's our problem - it has to be just that easy. We have to get to the point where everyone (EVERYONE) is responsible for everything (EVERYTHING) they do. Leo is correct, else the courts will be wasting even more time than they do now, ...
In our "instant" society....as Larry points out...everyone wants everything done yesterday to everyone's best interest ASAP...
Sorry...not gonna happen for the obvious reasons. This is one circumstance where instant gratification does not hold court (no pun intended).
And the judicial system is already awash with wasting WAY too much time with litigation that shouldn't have to be heard in the first place. Not to mention all the plea deals, bargains galore, and loopholes to drive a semi through...all for the sake of the CRIMINAL.
It used to be called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY....also known as ETHICS, MORALITY and even CIVILITY.
Time to hold (all) those people that skirt the law UP to the same standard law-abiding citizens practice...period. No discussion, no debate, no infringement on "rights"...just some cold hard common sense WILL get that job done.
B.G.
Holding a manufacturer responsible for some citizen's bad behavior just because the citizen can't pay for his crime is a fanciful notion indeed (and it makes a mockery of the idea of a true victim of defective manufacture getting an honest settlement in a case with substance).
You might as well sue the maker of the brick dropped on you from a freeway overpass for making bricks.
If a licensed biker buys a Schwinn which he then uses as a getaway vehicle -- and runs you down during his escape -- but he can't pay your hospital bills -- you can't expect Schwinn to pay your bills just because they have some money and your assailant doesn't.
And if by naming Schwinn in a frivolous suit you may cost them legal fees which would likely bankrupt their business, the meritless suit should be tossed out before harm is done.
And if you and your friends at Schwinns Control Inc. are all suing Schwinn frivolously, just because you don't like a well-made bike that operates flawlessly as designed, none of you deserve to profit from your crimes.
So, you guys are cool with the victim being left holding the bag. That's certainly a plausible policy position.
But I don't know how it can be regarded as such an easy decision. Somebody who shouldn't have to pay is going to have to pay. Even where the gun manufacturer had absolutely no way to know of the criminal's violent inclinations, it's a tough call -- because Gun Manufacturer and Victim have about the same level of fault, which is to say none or almost none. But I can certainly see where the scale tips toward Manufacturer if Manufacturer made a business decision to specifically target high crime areas for sales and had reason to know that this would increase gun possession among criminals.
I have to say, I don't get where the discussions of "personal responsibility" factor into the discussion. It's not an abdication of personal responsibility for the victim to try to get their medical bills paid. The victim is not personally responsible for getting shot.
Let's take the gun out of the equation. So, with this line of logic (as has been said before) if I get stabbed with a fork by some drug-hopped-up person, I should sue the silverware manufacturer because neither I nor my assailant can pay for my medical bills ? If you
For starters, I'm not sure what the right answer is, even in the gun scenario. My main point is that it's not an easy call, and I'm not quite sure how others regard it as easy.
But, to the fork manufacturer: 1) Guns are different in that they really have no other purpose than to kill stuff. I don't have a problem with that - some stuff needs killing (the guy breaking into your house for example.) Forks, on the other hand, have been known to have alternate purposes - hauling food between one's plate and one's mouth, for example. 2) Even if the distinction in #1 were not present, I suppose that if it could be proved that the fork manufacturer made a business decision to target their marketing to people who were likely to jam the forks into other people (who did not deserve a good forking), then I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the fork manufacturer having to pick up the bill for the undeservedly forked.
Sounds to me like we all get forked, ...
The big lie of course is that guns have no other purpose but a negative. Guns have been used for centuries for far more positive, necessary, practical purposes than harm an innocent. Besides, forks have no other purpose than to poke/stab/penetrate soft tissue, and swimming pools have no other purpose than to attract humans to become immersed in a liquid in which, if something goes awry, they can't survive. Cars -- I hope you get the point.
And incidentally, even if we hated all of the above objects, it will be possible only to ban pools, forks and cars, because unlike firearms (and speech and the press), those other things don't have their own paragraph in our Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Not all killing is negative, so I agree that guns aren't a pure negative. And, I happen to think the Second Amendment is a good idea - not because I care overly much about an individual's love of guns, but rather because an armed populace serves as a check on potential abuses by the government.
I would, however, have a problem with a Gun Manufacturer that attempted to profit by marketing to criminals with a propensity for harming innocents. I don't know that this has actually happened, but if a Plaintiff could prove that it did, then I wouldn't be upset if the Manufacturer had to pay for an injury caused by the criminal.
>"I would, however, have a problem with a Gun
>Manufacturer that attempted to profit by
>marketing to criminals with a propensity for
>harming innocents. I don't know that this has
>actually happened...."
This is the point. Manufacturers sell to distributors who sell to dealers, who sell to individuals, etc. There isn't any evidence at all that manufacturers think criminals are a target market. But that doesn't discourage Paul's people from making up ghost stories bought by liberals who are superstitiously afraid of metal tools.