Sandy Hook families appeal dismissal of gun lawsuit

HARTFORD, Conn. – The families of some of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims Tuesday appealed a Superior Court judge’s ruling dismissing their lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used in shooting.

The appeal was filed in Appellate Court, but the plaintiffs are requesting the case to be heard by the state Supreme Court. The families of 10 victims filed the lawsuit in January 2015 seeking to hold the Remington Outdoor Co. liable for the massacre because it marketed a gun to the public it knew was made for military use.

“We feel strongly that the critical issues raised in this case belong before our state’s Supreme Court and we hope the Court agrees,” said the families’ attorney, Josh Koskoff of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. “The Supreme Court not only sets precedent but also reviews the applicability and relevance of prior decisions, and works to ensure that the common law is up-to-date with the realities and dangers of a changing world.”

Adam Lanza shot his way into the Newtown school on Dec. 14, 2012, and fired 154 bullets in about five minutes from a Bushmaster AR-15 killing 26 people, including 20 first-graders.

The lawsuit also named Camfour Holding LLC, the gun’s distributor, and Riverview Sales, the East Windsor gun shop where Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother, bought the AR-15. Bellis dismissed the lawsuit against Camfour but left it pending against Riverview Sales, which has since been closed by federal authorities for other violations.

In a 54-page written ruling on the widely watched case, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis agreed with attorneys for Remington Outdoor Co. that the lawsuit “falls squarely within the broad immunity” provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by federal law, specifically the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The judge made it clear the families’ claims that the gun company should be held liable for Adam Lanza’s actions did not meet the narrow exceptions the federal law allows.

“Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within PLCAA’s definition of negligent entrustment, ” Bellis wrote.

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could not win under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

“A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship, ” the judge wrote.

The families’ appeal, Koskoff said, “asks the Supreme Court to consider the scope of the common law of negligent entrustment in Connecticut and its application to circumstances and technology that could not have been contemplated when the cause of action was first recognized.”

The families argue that the meaning of certain language in CUTPA must be determined by the Supreme Court, Koskoff said.