Guns
Justices wrestle with gun-maker responsibility In San Francisco the California Supreme court is considering a landmark gun liability case. The landmark case is whether to hold gun makers responsible for harm their products cause. The court has heard and watched negligence lawsuits against the manufacturer of a semiautomatic assault weapon that was used in the killing and wounding of 14 people during a rampage in a San Francisco high-rise in 1993. The courts decision on whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed will also help with other lawsuits pending in many other places around California. Gun makers fear that a loss in this case could make them vulnerable as the tobacco industry in lawsuits by victims. Some of the justices search for a way to hold the gun makers somewhat responsible. They are saying that the negligently promoted and sold the weapon, moreover it would also have to find that the negligence caused the mayhem. The 1st District Court of Appeal decided in September 1999 the lawsuit should be upheld because they had reason to believe that they “had substantial reason to foresee that many of those whom it made the TEC-DC9 available would criminally misuse it to kill and injure others.” They said they deli
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Manual DOM, Defense Fund, Court Appeal, America Instead, Government Code, Eddie Dillard, California Supreme, California Gun, Level IV, San Francisco, gun makers, provide defense, provide defense corcoran, district court, pelican bay, correctional officer, moreover officers, hold gun, defend officers, gun manufacturers, hold gun makers, thinking job jeopardy, putting blame,
Approximate Word count = 1809
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
