* Crossposted from: FREEDOM'S_VOICE
From: tomii@siu.edu (Thomas G. Burke II)
******************************************************
The New Gun Week 7-1-96
District Court Rules In Favor of Auto"Ordinance
The pro-gun community won a major judicial victory when the US District
Court for the Northern District of California issued a summary judgment for
Auto-Ordinance to dismiss a lawsuit brought by victims of a shooting 
cident.
In his written conclusion, Judge Fern M. Smith declared, "Plaintiffs ask
this court to provide through judicial fiat what the California and United
States legislatures have each refused to provide by law. This invitation to
create new California law must be declined.
"Although the Court is sympathetic to the plight of plaintiffs and other
victims of firearm violence, the judiciary is not the proper branch of
government to provide the relief that plaintiffs seek."
The case stemmed from a July 4, 1994 shooting in which Pedro Gomez shot
several members of the Redondo family, killing none but injuring all 
eriously
and leaving one a quadriplegic. The firearm used in the shooting was a Model
1927 A5 Thompson, which the Gomez family had purchased in 1985.
Police never recovered the gun, but no one contested the fact that it was
a Model 1927 A5 Thompson. Gomez currently is serving a 14-year sentence in
state prison for the shooting.   The four victims of the shooting sued
Auto-Ordinance, the manufacturer of the Thompson, asserting claims for:
-1. negligence in manufacturing a firearm that is disproportionately
associated with criminal activity and that has no legitimate sporting or
self-defense purpose;
-2. strict liability for its abnormally dangerous activity of selling the
Thompson; and
-3. intentional infliction of emotional distress on the foreseeable
victims of these shootings and on relatives.
The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages, alleging that AutoOrdinance
acted "outrageously" in manufacturing the Thompson.
In its decision, the court pointed out, "In general, California law does
not impose a duty on manufacturers to insure against third party misuse of
their nondefective products.
"Similarly, the California legislature confirmed that users of firearms,
not manufacturers of legal, nondefective firearms, are responsible for 
injuries
caused by firearms.  "The legislature determined: 'Injuries or damages
resulting from the discharge of a firearm or ammunition are not proximately
caused by its
potential to cause serious injury, damage or death, but are proximately
caused by the actual discharge of the products   "The legislature also
found that no firearm 'shall be deemed defective in design on the basis
thatsthe benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed
by its potential to cause serious injury, damage or death when
discharged.'....
"The Court believes that the California Supreme Court would not expand
California law to permit liability against a manufacturer under the more 
narrow
standards of negligence or strict liability, when California law does not
permit the same action under the broader umbrella of product liability law."
The court noted that the plaintiffs presented "no evidence of a special
relationship between Auto-Ordinance and Gomez...."
and that, "Auto-Ordinance had no advance notice that, nine years after it
sold the firearm to Gomez's father, Gomez would use the firearm illegally."
Further, the court said that there was no evidence the Auto-Ordinance
advertisements presented by the plaintiffs "were targeted to criminals
generally or to Gomez specifically, were seen by Gomez or were somehow the
cause of Gomez's violent behavior."
It added that, "The record is unrefuted that defendant lawfully sold all
Thompsons to federally-licensed firearm dealers."  The court also dismissed
the plaintiffs' claim that Auto-Ordinance was strictly liable for its
"ultra-hazardous activity" of simply selling the Thompson.
It noted, "California law defines an activity as 'ultra-hazardous' only
if (I) it involves arisk of serious harm to a person that cannot be 
liminated
by exercise of utmost care, and (2) it is not a matter of common usage."
The court said, "Because the actual use of firearms is not 'ultrahazardous'
under California law, it follows that the manufacture, marketing and sale
of firearms cannot be ultra-hazardous either."  In addition, the court
dismissed the 50 unnamed "John Doe' defendants who were supposedly involved
in the manufacture, distribution and sale of Thompsons.
tomii@siu.edu
tom@engr.siu.edu
tburkeii@aol.com
tgb2@siucvmb.siu.edu
Tom Burke
2520 New Era Rd #19
Murphysboro, IL 62966
(618) 549-3188
****************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
****************************************************************************
--- FMail 1.02
---------------