UPDATED

Law Profs Say Gun Makers Should Be Liable for Sandy Hook Shooting

Professors from some of the nation’s top law schools filed an amicus brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court saying case law clearly shows negligent entrustment applies, even in cases involving guns.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Chuck Lantz

    A comment so nice that it posted twice.

  • Chuck Lantz

    Here come the trolls.

  • Chuck Lantz

    Here come the trolls.

  • Frank Staples

    Since these guys should be smart enough to know that their argument is sheer stupidity ( for instance the "weapon of war" bit, since no army in the world uses the AR 15 ) then the only remaining case is for gross greed!

  • Ken

    The more the families flop and twitch over how much money they stand to make from their tragedy, the more the value of my Bushmaster XM E2 that I bought new just days before Sandy Hook continues to climb. If a piece of the ISS should happen to fall off and hit you in the head, do you file suit against McDonnel Douglas? Some things as the anti crowd likes to say are "common sense". Looking for a payday from manufactures aint it.

  • Jack Burton

    "military grade assault weapons" When you have to outright, knowingly, and willingly lie to present your case then you know that have the legal ethics and morality of an alley cat -- and that may be overly insulting to alley cats. ~This~ is why there will never be a meeting of the minds between the anti- and the pro-firearm people. The antis have shown over and over and over -- in hundreds of situations -- that they are simply not capable of telling the truth to the public. And unfortunately they have lapdog media journalists who are either to ignorant of the subject/issues or to in-bed with the "anti- philosophy" to call them out on their lies. Pitiful.

  • RWH

    These are not military weapons. Military weapons have selective, single shot, three shot bursts, and fully automatic fire capabilities. The weapons in question are single shot, semi-automatic rifles and are similar to a semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle in the way that it fires, e.g., one round for each trigger pull. So the argument based on military weapons for the "untrained" civilian population holds no water.

  • Robert E.

    This position is clearly posited from either a political or a pecuniary interest.

  • NYC Realist

    I strongly favor banning all assault style weapons; they should be 100% illegal. But imposing liability AFTER the fact for the sale of a LEGAL item is neither fair nor justified and is simply a boon for the lawyers.

  • NYL

    Couldn‘t this theory also be applied to pharmaceutical companies selling large quantities of their drugs to pharmacies they know are selling way too much opioids to a particular area, and leading to overdoses and such? Also, the statement about selling to untrained civilians--not all the buyers are untrained, many have served in the military. And personally I don‘t see the significance of them being "untrained" civilians--if they were "trained" civilians, they would cause even more harm to their targets, so why even mention their training or lack of training in your argument?

  • joeupyoursCS

    what a bunch of CRACK hears! THE demoRATS r the WAR on American,long live President Trump! GOD bless the United States Of American!LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202784076111

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.


Recommended for You

    loading...