Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 October 2001
• Docket Number: (SC 16465)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JOSEPH P. GANIM ET AL. v. SMITH AND WESSON CORPORATION ET AL.

258 Conn. 313

780 A.2d 98

JOSEPH P. GANIM ET AL. v. SMITH AND WESSON CORPORATION ET AL.

(SC 16465)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 21, 2001.

Officially released October 9, 2001.

Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Zarella and Klaczak, JS. Bourke G. Spellacy, with whom were Barbara Frederick and, on the brief, Richard S. Order, Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Robert R. Simpson, Mark T. Anastasi, Dennis A. Henigan, pro hac vice, Brian J. Siebel, pro hac vice, Jonathan E. Lowy, pro hac vice, Ruchi Bhowmik, pro hac vice, and Allen K. Rostron, pro hac vice, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Lawrence S. Greenwald, pro hac vice, with whom were David J. Elliott, Robert J. Cooney, Timothy G. Atwood, Christopher Renzulli, pro hac vice, J. Michael Sulzbach, Carla Ottaviano, Peter C. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Richard G. Kascak, Jr., Serge G. Mihaly, Charles A. Deluca, Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr., and John Conway, and, on the brief, James P. Dorr, John F. Renzulli, pro hac vice, William M. Griffin III, pro hac vice, Michael C. Hewitt, pro hac vice, Mark K Ostrowski, Thomas E. Fennell, pro hac vice, Timothy A. Bumann, pro hac vice, Charles L. Coleman, pro hac vice, James R. Branit, pro hac vice, Robert L. Joyce, pro hac vice, Gary R. Long, pro hac vice, Jeffrey S. Nelson, pro hac vice, Brian W. Smith, Harold R. Mayberry, Jr., pro hac vice, and Douglas E. Kliever, pro hac vice, for the appellees (defendant Sturm, Ruger and Company, Inc., et al.).

Raymond J. Plouffe, Jr., for the appellees (defendant Scott Moss Gun and Tackle, Inc., et al.).

Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, with whom were Gregory T. D'Auria, associate attorney general, and, on the brief, Stephen R. Park and Perry Zinn-Rowthorn, assistant attorneys general, for the office of the attorney general as amicus curiae.

Opinion

BORDEN, J.

The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the plaintiffs, a Connecticut municipality and its mayor, have standing to assert the various causes of action that they have alleged against the defendants, who are various firearms manufacturers, trade associations and retail sellers.¹ The plaintiffs, the city of Bridgeport and its mayor, Joseph P. Ganim, in his official capacity, appeal² from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss their claims for lack of standing. The plaintiffs claim that they have standing: (1) under General Statutes § 7-148 (c) (1) (A) and (7) (H) (xi),³ which are part of the Home Rule Act; (2) under the common law of nuisance; (3) because they have alleged injuries and damages that are direct as to them, and are not derived from any other entity's or person's injuries; (4) under General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110q, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA);⁴ and (5) under General Statutes Liability Act.⁵ The plaintiffs also claim that the trial court improperly dismissed their claims because a motion to dismiss may not be used to challenge issues of proximate causation, which, they contend, were the gravamen of the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants counter that the plaintiffs lack standing because the harms that they alleged are too indirect and remote from the defendants' conduct, and are derivative of others' injuries. We agree with the defendants that the plaintiffs lack standing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing their claims.⁶

The plaintiffs brought this action, based on a common set of factual allegations, giving rise to nine counts. The first seven counts, and the ninth count, were directed at all of the defendants. The first count alleged liability under the Product Liability Act. The second and third counts alleged CUTPA violations. The fourth count alleged public nuisance. The fifth and sixth counts alleged negligence. The seventh count alleged a civil conspiracy. The ninth count alleged unjust enrichment. The eighth count, which was directed only at the retailers, alleged a civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought monetary and injunctive relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint for lack of standing. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.

I THE PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS

"It is well established that [i]n ruling upon whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. v. Branford, 247 Conn. 407, 410-11, 722 A.2d 271 (1999). That principle does not apply, however, to legal conclusions alleged. American Laundry Machinery, Inc. v. State, 190 Conn. 212, 217, 459 A.2d 1031 (1983). The plaintiffs' allegations, including all facts necessarily implied therefrom, are as follows.

The plaintiffs made a number of specific allegations against the three groups of defendants. With respect to the manufacturers, they alleged that handgun manufacturers have for years had the ability to design handguns to be self-locking and childproof, and to prevent handguns from being fired by an unauthorized and unintended user. These feasible devices would prevent firearm injuries and deaths that occur in Bridgeport when children and other unauthorized and unintended users gain access to guns and are incapable of handling them safely and lawfully. Manufacturers have not taken adequate and reasonable measures to make the guns safer in order to prevent foreseeable injuries and deaths suffered by Bridgeport residents. The manufacturers promote and distribute handguns lacking in such warnings that would prevent shootings by unauthorized and unintended users.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the manufacturers have for years engaged in a conspiracy to mislead and deceive Bridgeport and its residents regarding the safety of handguns. The defendants advertise the fallacy that the use of handguns will increase home safety, when research demonstrates that handguns actually increase the risk of homicide, suicide, and both intentional and unintentional injuries. The defendants have for years knowingly sold guns in a manner that foreseeably leads to the guns flowing into an illegal market that, in turn, supplies guns to criminals and other unauthorized users. The defendants' failure to implement sufficient controls over the methods of distribution has fueled the illegal market, which in turn has fueled crime in Bridgeport.

As a result, the plaintiffs alleged, Bridgeport has suffered irreparable harm and financial harm, including additional expenses for police services, emergency services, and expenses for pension benefits, health care, social services and necessary facilities. In addition, as a result it has suffered loss of investment, economic development and tax revenues due to lost productivity. One particular harm that Bridgeport has suffered is the victimization of its citizens, particularly its children, who are injured or killed because of the alleged conduct of the defendants.

The plaintiffs also alleged that those manufacturers located in the United States; see footnote 1 of this opinion; design, manufacture, assemble, market, advertise and sell "handguns that have been or could be fired by unauthorized and/or unintended users in Bridgeport and the State of Connecticut." Those manufacturers located in other countries; see footnote 1 of this opinion; design, manufacture, market, advertise and sell "handgun parts and handguns" to a domestic manufacturer "that have been or could be fired by unauthorized and/ or unintended users in Bridgeport and the State of Connecticut."

With respect to the trade associations, the plaintiffs alleged that they are "composed of handgun manufacturers and sellers, including some or all of the manufacturer/seller defendants." The plaintiffs made no specific allegations regarding any conduct of the associations. The specific allegations against the retail sellers are that they "regularly [sell] and [advertise] handguns that have been or could be fired by unauthorized and/or unintended users in Bridgeport and the State of Connecticut."

Under the heading, "The Presence of Illegal and Unsafe Handguns and Irresponsible Sales In and Around Bridgeport," the plaintiffs also alleged as follows. Bridgeport is faced with high levels of violent crime, and the violence attributed to handguns destroys families and communities, and injures and takes the lives of intended and unintended victims. In 1996, more than 34,000 people nationwide were killed with handguns, of which more than 14,300 were homicides, more than 18,100 were suicides, and more than 1100 were from unintentional shooting. Approximately 99,000 people are treated annually in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal firearm injuries, of which approximately 20,000 are victims of unintentional shootings caused primarily by handguns. In Bridgeport, the use of handguns has caused and continues to cause hundreds of deaths and injuries.

Handgun violence has a crippling effect on Bridgeport's minority communities. Of the total fatalities attributed to handgun violence in Bridgeport, more than 80 percent were African-American or Hispanic.

A number of those killed by handguns in Bridgeport were children under the age of fifteen, and in Connecticut, from 1983 to 1995, gun homicides by juveniles tripled, while nongun homicides declined. Handgun violence negatively has impacted the lifestyle of children in certain residential communities in Bridgeport.

Under the subheading, "Design, Manufacture and Sale of Unsafe Products," the plaintiffs alleged as follows. The defendants' handguns are inherently and unreasonably dangerous because they enable persons who gain access to them, including children and adolescents who cannot properly handle them or understand their risks, to fire them. It is, however, feasible to design handguns that do not fire when...