Case Notes

CT Supreme Court Is Asked to Throw Out Sandy Hook Case Against Gun Manufacturers

Gun manufacturers Remington and Bushmaster have asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to throw out the case brought against them by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. In that incident, an emotionally disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, murdered his mother in their shared home, then travelled to the nearby school where he opened fire on children and teachers using an AR-15 rifle manufacturered by Bushmaster, which is owned by Remington.

The plaintiffs are suing under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA) claiming negligent entrustment: essentially, that the manufacturers knew their product was a dangerous assault rifle meant to be used as a weapon in wartime, and that they aggressively marketed it as such to the general public.

In their 70-page brief to the court, the defendants argue that the theory on which the plaintiffs rely is one not recognized in Connecticut. They claim that the AR-15 is not a weapon of war and that the plaintiffs' description of it as such is merely an attempt to “demonize the rifle.” They also describe CUTPA's purpose as being “to protect consumers, business competitors, and others in commercial relationships with a defendant who has harmed them in a marketplace transaction,” yet none of the plaintiffs in this case purchased a gun manufactured by the defendants.

CT Supreme Court Is Asked to Throw Out Sandy Hook Case Against Gun Manufacturers

Gun manufacturers Remington and Bushmaster have asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to throw out the case brought against them by the families of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. In that incident, an emotionally disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, murdered his mother in their shared home, then travelled to the nearby school where he opened fire on children and teachers using an AR-15 rifle manufacturered by Bushmaster, which is owned by Remington.

The plaintiffs are suing under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA) claiming negligent entrustment: essentially, that the manufacturers knew their product was a dangerous assault rifle meant to be used as a weapon in wartime, and that they aggressively marketed it as such to the general public.

In their 70-page brief to the court, the defendants argue that the theory on which the plaintiffs rely is one not recognized in Connecticut. They claim that the AR-15 is not a weapon of war and that the plaintiffs' description of it as such is merely an attempt to “demonize the rifle.” They also describe CUTPA's purpose as being “to protect consumers, business competitors, and others in commercial relationships with a defendant who has harmed them in a marketplace transaction,” yet none of the plaintiffs in this case purchased a gun manufactured by the defendants.