The California Supreme Court will wade into some of the unsettled
legal questions surrounding the nationwide crusade against the
firearms industry, agreeing this week to review an unprecedented lower
court ruling that opened the door for negligence suits against gun
makers.
In a brief order, six of the Supreme Court's seven justices voted to
consider the appeal of a Florida gun manufacturer facing a lawsuit
over the July 1993 massacre at 101 California St. in San Francisco.
Justice Stanley Mosk was the only member of the state's high court who
would have allowed the earlier ruling to stand.
The court's action effectively negates September's ruling by the
San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which held for the
first time that gun manufacturers could be sued for negligence in
California if they market and sell weapons with disregard for public
safety. It was believed to be the only appeals court in the country to
ever conclude that the gun industry could be held responsible for
abuses by criminals.
Lawyers involved in the gun litigation expected the Supreme Court
to take the case, in part because of the novel legal issues and also
because of the high-profile nature of the lawsuit. In addition, the
case has implications for cities and counties across California that
sued gun makers last year.
"I wasn't surprised," said San Francisco deputy city
attorney Owen Clement, who is supervising a Northern California
lawsuit against the industry. "It's an issue where there (have
not been) a lot appellate decisions. It will be interesting to see
what the Supreme Court will do with it."
The case before the Supreme Court involves a lawsuit filed by the
families and victims of gunman Gian Luigi Ferri, who killed eight
people and injured six others in a shooting spree at the high-rise
offices of the now-defunct San Francisco law firm Pettit & Martin.
The suit targeted Navegar Inc., which manufactured the two assault
weapons Ferri used in the attack.
A San Francisco judge dismissed the suit three years ago, but the
appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, disagreed. In a 111-page opinion, the
majority found that "Navegar's knowledge of the extraordinary
risks of misuse posed by the weapon as designed and marketed ...
created risks above and beyond those citizens may reasonably be
expected to bear in a society in which firearms may legally be
acquired and used."
Lawyers suing gun makers around the country say such a ruling, if
it withstands Supreme Court review, would negate one of the industry's
chief arguments: that it sells a legal product and cannot be held
legally responsible for abuses by criminals.
But the Supreme Court's decision to review the case is the latest
legal victory for the gun industry, which is under siege in dozens of
states from lawsuits alleging that it should pay the cost of
gun-related violence. State court judges recently dismissed suits
filed by Chicago and Miami against gun makers, although those cases
were filed under different legal theories than those being used in
California.
Two separate cases have been filed in California, one in Los
Angeles and the other in San Francisco, where Bay Area governments
including East Palo Alto, Oakland and San Mateo County have joined the
legal fight. Gun makers are attempting to have the cases consolidated
and heard in San Diego, but the cities resist a shift in venue.
Meanwhile, lawyers for the gun industry hope the Supreme Court will
shoot down the case against Navegar.
"We're looking forward to presenting this issue to the
California Supreme Court," said Los Angeles attorney Ernie Getto,
who represents Navegar.
TO MAIN PAGE
