Citation

Studdert DM, Donohue JJ, Mello MM. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017; 177(1): 102-105.

Affiliation

Stanford Law School, Stanford, California2Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, American Medical Association)

DOI

10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7043

PMID

27842188

Abstract

In the absence of congressional action to reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons, tort litigation offers an alternative strategy for regulating what have become the weapons of choice in mass shootings. However, opportunities to bring successful claims are limited. To prevail, plaintiffs must show that their suit fits within exceptions to the broad immunity from tort actions that Congress gave the firearm industry in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In one particularly high-profile lawsuit, families of victims of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 sued the makers and sellers of the military-style rifle used in the attack, alleging negligence and deceptive marketing. The trial court dismissed the case on October 14, 2016, but the plaintiffs plan to appeal. We review the history of tort litigation against the firearm industry, outline the Newtown families' claims, and describe the decision.

Language: en