Lawsuits by or on the behalf of persons injured by handguns have historically been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, in the wake of new, emerging legal theories that focus on the alleged harm done to municipalities, as well as victims and their families, at least seven cities have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers.
The suits, which have generally sought to recover resources that municipalities have expended in law enforcement, including costs of responding to shootings, have essentially embraced two legal inquiries: Did gun manufacturers (1) ignore available safety devices and (2) intentionally saturate the market with dangerous guns?
Under the first theory, municipalities have asserted a basic "product liability" claim; that is, guns lack safety features, have inadequate warnings, and are fired by unauthorized persons. Such suits further assert that gun manufacturers should have manufactured "smart guns," or guns with devices that effectively prevent unauthorized persons from firing the weapon. Indeed, several cities contend that gun manufacturers were aware of such devices, yet failed to utilize them.
Concerning the second cause of action, cities have filed suit under a public nuisance theory; i.e., the gun manufacturer's liability arises because it has widely distributed guns that threaten the health and safety of the public. This legal theory is premised on the assertion that persons in a community have "a right to live in an environment free from unreasonable jeopardy of life, welfare and safety."
In order to stave off this growing tide of litigation, various gun-lobbying groups such as the National Rifle Association have lobbied state legislatures to pass bills banning local governments from suing gun manufacturers and distributors. For example, in Maryland, Beretta USA Corp., a Maryland-based entity, has recently spent $10,000 to establish a political action committee to fight Governor Parris Glendening's proposal for "smart gun" trigger locks, which the governor advocated during his reelection campaign. Such "smart guns" only discharge when operated by the owner of the gun.
The consternation of the gun industry may be warranted. In Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-Tek, et al., relatives of individuals killed by handguns filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against several gun manufacturers, alleging that, the gun manufacturers' negligent marketing practices created a large number of illegal handguns that were readily accessible to criminals. The jury agreed, finding that various manufacturers were negligent by oversupplying guns to states that have weaker gun laws, ultimately resulting in the sale of guns in areas with stricter gun laws.
Up until recently, the legal battles against the gun industry have been waged primarily by victims who have largely been unsuccessful. Now, however, buttressed perhaps by the recent verdict in Hamilton, various states and other cities are considering entering the fray. Although neither the state of Maryland nor Baltimore City has officially committed itself to legal action against the gun industry, such action might result in the near future since the status of gun-retailer liability in Maryland remains unclear. See Valentine v. On Target, Inc., No. 8, (Md. Apr. 19, 1999).