|
When both sides in a lawsuit claim victory, it is usually safe to say that one of them is stretching a point. But the
verdict delivered against 15 handgun manufacturers by a federal jury in New York on February 12th was so
confusing that it is truly difficult to know which side won. The plaintiffs' lawyers hailed the verdict, saying it
will open the floodgates to a deluge of litigation against gun makers like that which has humbled the tobacco
industry. The gun industry scoffed at this, pointing out that the verdict was a tortured compromise which failed
to find gun makers broadly liable for the misuse of their products.
The 11-strong jury deliberated for six days, repeatedly pleading with the judge that they were deadlocked. Each time he told them to try again. In a complex verdict which took 45 minutes to read, they finally found that the marketing and distribution practices of 15 of the 25 gun manufacturers who were defendants in the case had been negligent in allowing their products to fall into the hands of criminals. But the jurors found a link between such negligence and only three of the seven shootings in the case and awarded damages, amounting to $560,000, to only one of the victims. Whether or not this ambiguous verdict sets an important precedent, it is clearly just the opening shot in a legal and political battle which looks set to rage for years to come. The New York case was brought by a group of private plaintiffs. But gun-control advocates are especially excited by the prospect of suits brought by municipal governments against the industry, in imitation of the successful legal action taken by state governments against tobacco firms. In the past few months, five cities have filed suits seeking to recoup policing and medical costs caused by guns. Chicago and Bridgeport, Connecticut, like the New York plaintiffs, are claiming that gun makers negligently oversupplied dealers in areas with lax gun-control laws, knowing that their products would end up in the hands of criminals. New Orleans, Miami and Atlanta have pursued a more traditional product-liability claim, arguing that gun makers failed to incorporate enough safety devices in their handguns. Scores of other cities are considering similar suits. In the approaching legal battle, the gun industry has some clear advantages. Unlike the tobacco industry, it enjoys dedicated support among a large segment of the public. That translates into political clout. Earlier this month, Georgia rushed through a law quashing Atlanta's pending lawsuit against gun makers and barring future suits by any of the state's cities. Moreover, many Americans seem to accept the gun industry's argument that it cannot be held liable for the misuse of guns any more than car makers can be sued for deaths caused by drunk drivers. As a result, juries may not accept the negligent-marketing theories being put forward in some city-backed lawsuits. The jurors in the New York case rejected this central claim. But the biggest advantage the gun industry may have is that, unlike the tobacco industry, it offers no giant pot of gold for contingency-fee lawyers. Sales of guns in 1997, at only $1.4 billion, were tiny compared with the $48 billion in sales for cigarette makers, who are also far more profitable. With much less to gain in damage awards, lawyers acting for cities or private plaintiffs are likely to be far less persistent in pursuing gun makers if, as looks certain, they fight back with determination. |