Appeals court rejects St. Louis city's lawsuit against gunmakers
JIM SUHR
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS - Saying a newly revised Missouri law bars such legal action, a state appeals court refused Tuesday to reinstate the city's lawsuit that sought compensation from gunmakers, distributors and related trade groups for gun-related injuries.
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay called the ruling by the three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals disappointing, adding that it was not yet clear whether the city would further appeal.
"Our lawyers are reviewing the decision, and we're looking at our legal options," Slay said. "We knew it was an uphill battle, but given the devastation of gun violence we thought it was a battle worth fighting."
Tuesday's decision upheld a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of the city's 1999 lawsuit. In that ruling, Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brien said such lawsuits would open "a floodgate to additional litigation," and that "issues of both logic and fairness" favored throwing out the case.
The National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, cheered the latest ruling, saying "this sound decision is a victory for gun owners and all who believe society must hold criminals accountable for their crimes.
"These baseless lawsuits have done nothing but squander taxpayer's money," Cox said in a statement. "Unfortunately, big-city mayors and money-hungry lawyers have played into the hands of gun-banners, who designed these suits to crush the American firearm industry under the weight of legal fees."
Last year, a bipartisan group of Missouri lawmakers overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Bob Holden to enact legislation barring both pending and future lawsuits by governments against the gun industry over the social costs of gun violence.
The legislation - meant to stop the St. Louis case - bars cities, counties, the state or any other political subdivision from bringing lawsuits against gun and ammunition manufacturers, dealers and trade associations relating to lawfully made and distributed products.
Those amended subsections took effect Oct. 12, 2003, applying to any lawsuit pending at the time or any future one. After O'Brien tossed out the city's case just days later, attorneys for the city said the new law was not argued before his court.
The law does allow individuals to sue to recover damages for deaths or injuries caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of guns and ammunition.
Tuesday's ruling said that because the city never questioned the constitutionality of the revised law with O'Brien when it had the chance, the appeals court deemed the issue waived and not addressable now.
"The enactment of this statute seems to be in response to suits like this one, which attempt to apply theories of tort liability to the significantly regulated industry of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of firearms," the appellate ruling read. "Therefore, we find the city's claims are prohibited" by the amended statutes.
In arguments to the state appellate panel last month, Jonathan Lowy - senior attorney with the Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence - urged that court to reinstate the city's lawsuit against 32 defendants.
Lowy insisted gunmakers should be subject to lawsuits for the social costs of violence because their sales practices ease the flow of some weapons to dealers and criminals.
He said the gun industry "has chosen to take part in unreasonable sales practices that eventually reach the criminal gun market," including by failing to set up a code of conduct and standards for weapons dealers.
But Lawrence Greenwald, a Baltimore lawyer representing gunmaker Beretta USA Corp., countered that "the fundamental issue which cuts through this entire case is: Should the city, which is not a person who got shot, collect from gunmakers, who didn't do the shooting?"
"That is exactly what St. Louis is trying to do," he said.
Greenwald said state law pre-empts any city or political subdivision other than the state from regulating weapons. In this case, he argued, "the city is trying to go in through the back door" by trying to use the courts to regulate weapons.
"The direction is plainly against holding manufacturers liable for actions by criminals over which manufacturers have no control," Greenwald said.
