Boston Globe – by Erik Eckholm
MILWAUKEE — Closing arguments were heard Monday in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, in what has been a rarity in the last decade: a jury trial on the obligations of gun dealers who make questionable sales.
A victory for two wounded police officers, legal analysts say, could bring renewed energy to civil litigation aimed at making the gun industry safer.
The case is part of a new wave of lawsuits — at least 10 are percolating around the country — that focus on gun shops and accuse them of knowingly permitting illegal sales or of being grossly negligent.
Defense lawyers for the owners and operators of Badger Guns, a suburban Milwaukee shop, said Monday that their clients shouldn’t be held liable for injuries inflicted upon the officers, who were shot with a gun sold at the store.
James Vogts and Wendy Gunderson said in closing arguments that their clients were deceived by a straw buyer who purchased a gun for someone else, even though he knew it was illegal to do so.
They presented their cases after the officers’ attorney asked the jury to award his clients several million dollars in damages. Officer Bryan Norberg and Graham Kunisch were both shot in the face.
Patrick Dunphy, the lawyer for the officers, said Norberg deserves more than $2 million for his wounds and Kunisch should get $5.6 million.
At 18, Julius Burton could not legally buy a gun. So he paid a 21-year-old acquaintance $40 to accompany him to Badger Guns and to be the official buyer of a weapon.
Burton pointed to a Taurus semiautomatic pistol and said, “That’s the one I want,” according to surveillance video from that day in 2009 and trial testimony. Then he helped his friend, who was struggling to fill out a two-page form.
A hovering store clerk helped as well, showing the friend how to correct mistakes and ensure he was listed as the buyer.
A month later, on June 9, 2009, Burton shot the two police officers with the Taurus. One lost an eye and was left with brain damage; the other had serious face wounds. Burton is serving 80 years for attempted murder.
It was a classic straw purchase, an important way guns enter the underground market, though an unusually well-documented one because of the video and the quick identification of the true buyer.
But the case is unusual in another way. The wounded officers and the city of Milwaukee brought a civil lawsuit in state court against the gun store, charging that the clerk knew or should have known that the transaction was illegal.
Lawsuits against gun sellers and makers were sharply restricted 10 years ago, when Congress passed a law giving the industry wide immunity from blame for the misuse of its products.
“If the jury in Milwaukee rules for the victims, it would be a notable and unusual victory,” said Timothy D. Lytton, an expert in torts law and gun cases at the Georgia State University College of Law.
“It may well embolden more plaintiffs to bring lawsuits,” he said, “and give new momentum to a litigation campaign that looked all but dead after 2005.”
The Badger Guns clerk, Donald R. Flora, and the store owner, Adam J. Allan, say they did not realize Burton’s acquaintance, Jacob Collins, was a straw buyer, and their lawyers have cited the stringent limits on liability in the 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in defense.
In the 1980s and after, victims of gun violence and dozens of cities tried to sue weapons dealers and manufacturers, arguing that they should help pay for medical costs tied to their products. Many of the cases were rejected by the courts, although a few were settled.
In some cases, pressure from lawsuits appeared to prod companies into altering practices; some stopped production, for example, of cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials.
But the industry successfully pushed for restrictive new laws in more than 30 states, and then in Washington, to protect gun companies from liability for criminal or reckless actions by buyers over which, the companies asserted, they had no control.
Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry’s trade association, based in Newtown, Conn., said the law was needed to “stop suits for criminal misuse of lawful products.”
He noted that it includes exceptions for knowingly illegal sales or those made despite clear indications of danger, among other criteria that could permit lawsuits.
Both were “shot in the face” for stickin’ their noses in where they didn’t belong. Yes, and let’s sue God for creating lead. Assign the case to “Special Victims Unit” that stepped in front of a speeding bullet.
It’s absolutely idiotic to think that someone can be rightly held liable for the misuse of a legal product that they legally manufactured or sold. The same “logic” could be used to sue a sporting goods store for selling a baseball bat that was later used in an assault.
Of course we always hear the objection: “Guns are only for killing, while baseball bats have a legitimate use!” But this is still moronic. Even if it were true that guns were only suitable for killing — and that’s obviously not true — that wouldn’t lessen their legitimacy as a product. Killing can be perfectly justifiable if it’s done to protect innocent life.
I’m going to sue tampax for toxic shock syndrone.
Cause I have a vagina…. tampax doesn’t kill people.. vaginas kill people…
My apologies , I couldn’t resist.
“A month later, on June 9, 2009, Burton shot the two police officers with the Taurus. One lost an eye and was left with brain damage;…”
ALLEGED ‘brain damage’.
First they have to prove he HAS a brain.
“… the other had serious face wounds.”
Likely an improvement.
“If the jury in Milwaukee rules for the victims, it would be a notable and unusual victory,”
For stupidity.