Rifle Makers Settle in DC "Sniper" Case

[Romulus]

(quotation marks were my edit to the title)

Edited to add link: http://www.wtop.com/index.php?sid=264557&nid=333

SEATTLE (AP) - The manufacturer and dealer of the rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings agreed Wednesday to pay $2.5 million in a settlement with victims and victims' families.

The settlement with Bushmaster marks the first time a gun manufacturer has agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons, said Jon Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He helped argue the case. He said the settlement with Bull's Eye Shooter Supply is the largest against a gun dealer.

*snip*

The civil lawsuit alleged that at least 238 guns, including the snipers' rifle, disappeared from the gun shop in the three years before the shooting rampage. Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns, Bushmaster continued to use the shop as a dealer and provided it with as many guns as the owners wanted, the lawsuit alleged.

"It appears that 17-year-old Malvo was able to stroll into this gun store and stroll out carrying a 3-foot-long, $1,000 Bushmaster assault rifle," Lowy said. "Bull's Eye should have taken reasonable care to prevent guns from being stolen. Bushmaster should have required Bull's Eye to implement simple, reasonable security measures."

*snip/more*

The tort system marches on.

[slackmaster]

1. Only Bulls Eye should have ended up paying

They had terrible inventory control at best, and possible criminal mishandling of firearms.

Bushmaster had no way of monitoring what was going on at Bulls Eye. At least their portion of the settlement is coming from a liability insurance policy rather than the company's budget.

[TX-RAT]

2. I agree. Bulls eye should pay all.

Liability insurance is expensive.

[Romulus]

3. disagree

pretty much every managed care company has a vetting process (known as "credentialing") they use before they will accept a doctor into their provider network. Credentialing includes a basic background & education check, as well as malpractice claims or state med board actions, and even site visits to be sure medicines are securely stored. Even after joining the network, there is periodic credentialing to remain in the network.

I understand drug companies do something similar before they will allow their products to be dispensed at a particular paharmacy. Drug companies also look at site security & staff training on spotting straw or abusive drug purchases (i.e. Limbaugh).

Bushmaster should have been credentialing its dealers to be sure that only competent dealers would be allowed to sell its firearms. This is no different from the drug company credentialing of pharmacies.

[mosin]

4. Bologna

There is a credentialing process, managed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. It's called a Federal Firearms License. If the federal government certifies a dealer as competent, why would a private company with much more limited resources second-guess the certification. Besides which, manufacturers often sell through a much smaller number of wholesalers rather than directly to dealers.

Bushmaster should not have been held responsible for the crimes committed with its product any more than GM should be responsible for a death caused by a drunk driving a GM car stolen from a dealer's lot.

[Romulus]

8. were the keys left in the ignition?

Liability turns on whether reasonable steps were taken in proportion to the possible harm from not taking those steps.

I read some of the Brady court filings in their numerous lawsuits (www.gunlawsuits.org), and there are many crackpot legal theories they throw up to try to get just one to stick. The only leg they have to stand on is the one that supports other tort suits in other industries: whether the defendant did all they reasonably could to prevent the plaintiff's harm, including anything above "just following the law."

That's why the drug companies don't just take a pharmacy's state med board license at face value, and leave it at that.

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. why the " " around sniper? nt

[mosin]

7. They were not snipers.

They were murderers taking pot shots at innocent people.

[Bowbender]

11. Making Bushmaster pay is insane.

Bushmaster had nothing to do with it. Does anyone know if the two of them had any prior record concerning violence?

[Pert_UK]

6. IMHO the ATF should pay as well.....

It's my understanding that despite finding woefully lax controls at the gunshop the ATF never actually did anything to enforce improvements.

I mean, why not write, "Despite audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing that Bull's Eye had dozens of missing guns, the ATF failed to shut down the shop and arrest the clowns who work there."

You can see why I sometimes get on my high horse about gun control - I don't want to ban guns anywhere, but when you guys have got dealers losing 238 guns in 3 years, I'm pretty fucking chuffed to be in a country where that can't happen.

P.

[enfield collector]

9. yeah you're right, ATF dropped the ball on this one.

[Romulus]

10. I think they're hamstrung

after complaints from their late '80's & early '90's overreaching.

I think the most they can do is pull the license, but there is a whole administrative litigation process to go through. Maybe they were short on resources or something?

[-..__...]

12. Commonly known as....

"settling out of court". There's no admission of guilt or liability on Bushmasters part. In the long run they probably thought it would be cheaper and less time consuming than seeing the lawsuit through (including the appeals). With the AWB expiring, there's more important things for them to be concerned with... manufacturing "fully configured" AR-15 knock-offs. Even though it sets a bad example, it's better to pay-off the parasites and be done with it.

[jtb33]

13. Bushmaster's Press Release

Located: http://www.bushmaster.com

Bushmaster Responds to Brady Groups False Claim of Victory
Thursday September 9, 2004 9:24AM est

Windham, Maine -- The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company’s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims’ families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims’ families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group’s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Bushmaster Firearms, Inc.

[RoeBear]

14. I am not saddened by Bullseye...

..taking a beating in this situation. It sounds like they got what they deserved. But Bushmaster had no liability as far as I can see.

But who for a minute thinks that these murders wouldn't have happened if Bullseye didn't have such sloppy business practices?

[Liberal Classic]

15. As an aside

There's a justice and public safety issue little discussed in Justic/Public Saftey: torts.