Why the Suits Were Brought as Public Nuisance Suits: Tort Suits Had Failed Readers may ask: Why were the suits brought as public nuisance suits in the first place – rather than as the kind of tort suits that have been used against the tobacco industry?
The short answer is that this is a new, creative tactic in a tort litigation campaign that has generally been a failure. Granted, there have been a few successes: In 2001, Smith & Wesson voluntarily agreed to monitor its distributors (which made it a pariah in the industry). And this year, Brandon Maxfield, a 17-year-old-boy paralyzed by a defective safety catch in a handgun produced by Bryco Arms, attempted to use the money he won buy the company and put it out of business. Yet in general, the tort strategy has been a failure. Practically every court that has considered class action negligence claims against the gun industry has rejected them. Usually, the reason has been that courts do not see gun manufacturers as owing a legal duty to victims of handgun violence to reduce the general risk of crime in their community. But a public nuisance claim, in contrast, does not depend on a breach of duty by the defendant. It simply asserts that the defendant’s actions are “unreasonably” interf
Related Questions
- Why the Suits Were Brought as Public Nuisance Suits: Tort Suits Had Failed Readers may ask: Why were the suits brought as public nuisance suits in the first place - rather than as the kind of tort suits that have been used against the tobacco industry?
- Are you happy that Seattle Public Schools used a new phone system to inform students?
- What other strategies are used by RIT Public Safety?
