Wisconsin gun shop to pay $1M to settle officers' lawsuit

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

MILWAUKEE (AP) — A Wisconsin gun shop will pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which a jury found it negligently sold a gun used to injure two Milwaukee police officers, the store's attorney said.

The settlement eliminates what was expected to be a yearslong appeal of an October verdict in which jurors awarded Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch nearly $6 million.

An attorney for Badger Guns, James Vogts, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://bit.ly/1QaOzBU ) late Friday that the case has "been settled and dismissed."

"This case is over," Vogts said. He declined to say why his client decided not to appeal.

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b647fc2a5d24fda91543dd27f1f7d9f/wisconsin-gun-shop-pay-1m-settle-officers-lawsuit

[Duckhunter935]

1. and I thought they were immune

I guess some that mistakenly say that were just proven wrong.

[SunSeeker]

7. This was store liability for a strawman purchase, not pruducts liability against a gun manufacturer.

And even then, it presented unusual facts: the victims were police officers and the perpetrators were pretty obvious about it. See post 6.

[Duckhunter935]

8. but that is the case that keeps being presented

Gun manufacturers and retailers are exempt from all lawsuits. That is not correct and was once again proven wrong.

[SunSeeker]

9. That was not this case. No one here has said "gun manufacturers are exempt from all lawsuits."

Talk about straw men...

[Duckhunter935]

10. when I get on my computer, I will post links

That axact thing has been stated many times here.

[Archae]

2. Badger Guns keeps popping up in the news.

They do a high volume of sales, so a lot of the guns bought there end up at crime scenes.

In this case they knew a straw purchase was going through, but they let it go anyway, and a violent felon got his gun.

Both cops were shot in the head, one losing an eye.

[Mr.Bill]

3. Maybe he has insurance

that covers the one million.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Impressive that the straw purchaser was actually prosecuted.

[MariaThinks]

5. Liability is the only way to proper gun control in my opinion

the mass hysteria created by the nra is almost impossible to overcome along with their perversion of the 2nd amendment.

[Justice]

6. This case really needs to be studied. Outcome may have been because plaintiffs were police

Congress passed a law to protect manufacturers and dealers from this kind of lawsuit. There are just a few exceptions to the ban. If a dealer was negligent in making the sale, they can be liable. Law passed in 2005; this is only the 2nd to get to trial - the gun store won in the first case.

Here, 2 officers sued for negligence, alleging that the West Milwaukee gun shop should have known that the gun eventually used in the shooting was initially sold as part of a "straw" purchase.

How did officers prove it was a straw buy? Articles talk about real buyer being in store, picked out gun, and straw buyer made mistakes on paperwork and was allowed to change them. Two guys went to ATM to get more $$ to buy gun. How did this evidence get in at trial - was the store videotaped?

This gun store was at times the No #1 seller of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. ATF recovered 537 guns sold by store from crime scenes in 2005. Between 2007 and 2009 - 6 other Milwaukee cops were hurt by guns sold by store.

Would the ordinary citizen have access to this information - the videotape (if there was one), the knowledge about the stores past sales of guns used in crimes, that other cops were hurt by guns sold at the store? Or did you need to be a cop in order to know about this and get access to the evidence to bring in at trial?

Does anyone track how many civilians were hurt by guns sold at this store? How does an ordinary citizen get access to the raw data to put together such numbers? How can you prove negligence if you cannot obtain this data?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Badger was blatantly negligent, and the aforementioned law doesn't cover that:

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/wounded-officers-lawsuit-against-badger-guns-settles-for-1-million-b99632780z1-361609031.html

Dunphy said the testimony during the two-week trial revealed telltale signs of a straw buy: Burton was in the store and pointed to the gun he wanted; Collins initially marked that he was not the buyer of the gun on the form but was allowed to change that — and also to change his address; Collins and Burton left the store to get more cash to pay for the gun; and Collins didn't present an ID when he picked up the gun.

Here's what the actual law says (15 USC 7903)

(5) Qualified civil liability action

(A) In general The term “qualified civil liability action” means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include—

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—
(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18;