Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, No. CV-95-0049.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Citation | 935 F. Supp. 1307 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1996 |
| Parties | Freddie HAMILTON, Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Njuzi Ray, deceased; Freddie Hamilton, Individually, Katina Johnstone, Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of David Johnstone, deceased; Katina Johnstone, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. ACCU-TEK, American Arms, Inc., American Derringer, A.M.T., Armsco Distributing Co., d/b/a Armsco Distributor, Arms Corporation of America, Arms Technology, Astra-Unceta Y CIA, S.A., Beretta Firearms, Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms Co., Bryco Arms, Calico Inc., Caspian Arms, Inc., Century International Arms, Inc., Charco, f/k/a Charter Arms Corp., Colt Industries Operating Corp., Colt's Mfg. Co., Inc., Davis Industries, Inc., European American Armory, d/b/a E.A.A. Corp., Emco, Inc., Excam, Inc., Freedom Arms Co., Firearms Import and Export Corp., Glock, Inc., Grendel, Inc., H & R 1871 Inc., f/k/a/ Haskell Mfg. Inc., Harrington and Richardson, International Armament Corp., d/b/a Interarms Industries, Inc., International Distributors, Inc., Jennings Firearms, Inc., K.B.I. Inc., Llama Gabilondo Y CIA S.A., Lorcin Engineering Co., Marlin Firearms Inc., Mitchell Arms Inc., Navegar Inc., New England Firearms Inc., f/k/a Harrington and Richardson, Para Ordnance Mfg. Inc., Phoenix Arms, Inc., R.G. Industries, Inc., Ram-Line Corp., Remington Arms Co., Savage Arms Corp., Seecamp, Smith and Wesson, Inc., Stosseger Industries, Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc., S.W. Daniels Incorporated, Taurus International Firearms Inc., Thompson/Center Arms, U.S. Repeating Arms, Wesson Firearms Co., f/k/a Dan Wesson Arms, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | No. CV-95-0049. |
935 F. Supp. 1307
Freddie HAMILTON, Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Njuzi Ray, deceased; Freddie Hamilton, Individually, Katina Johnstone, Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of David Johnstone, deceased; Katina Johnstone, Individually, Plaintiffs,
v.
ACCU-TEK, American Arms, Inc., American Derringer, A.M.T., Armsco Distributing Co., d/b/a Armsco Distributor, Arms Corporation of America, Arms Technology, Astra-Unceta Y CIA, S.A., Beretta Firearms, Beretta U.S.A. Corp., Browning Arms Co., Bryco Arms, Calico Inc., Caspian Arms, Inc., Century International Arms, Inc., Charco, f/k/a Charter Arms Corp., Colt Industries Operating Corp., Colt's Mfg. Co., Inc., Davis Industries, Inc., European American Armory, d/b/a E.A.A. Corp., Emco, Inc., Excam, Inc., Freedom Arms Co., Firearms Import and Export Corp., Glock, Inc., Grendel, Inc., H & R 1871 Inc., f/k/a/ Haskell Mfg. Inc., Harrington and Richardson, International Armament Corp.,
No. CV-95-0049.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
August 12, 1996.
Robert L. Joyce, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, New York City, John Renzulli, Renzulli, Gaines & Rutherford, New York City, for Defendants Accu-tek, A.M.T., Browning Arms Co., Caspian Arms Co., Davis Industries, Inc., European American Armory, Freedom Arms Co., Glock Inc., H & R 1871 Corp., K.B.I. Corp., Mitchell Arms Inc., Navegar Inc., Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc., Sigarms, Inc., Springfield, Inc., Stosseger Industries, Thompson/Center Arms Co.
Daniel T. Hughes, Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski, New York City, for Defendant American Arms Inc.
Timothy A. Bumann, Christopher J. York, Cozen and O'Connor, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants American Derringer, Bryco Arms, Calico Inc., Excam Inc., Firearms Import and Export Corp., Jennings Firearms Inc., Lorcin Engineering Co., Phoenix Arms, Inc., S.W. Daniels Inc., Taurus International Firearms Inc.
Michael J. Sommi, Cozen and O'Connor, New York City, for Defendants A.M.T., Bryco Arms, Calico Inc., Excam Inc., Lorcin Engineering Co., Taurus International Firearms Inc., Thompson Center Arms.
Patricia Fried Moores, Pino & Associates, White Plains, NY, for Defendants Beretta Firearms, Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
Peter James Johnson, Jr., Leahey & Johnson, P.C., New York City, for Defendant Century International Arms Inc.
Timothy Atwood, Ansonia, CT, for Defendant Charco.
Anne Giddings Kimball, Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Dixon & Smith, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Colt Industries Operating Corp., Colt's Mfg. Co., Inc., Marlin Firearms Inc., Remington Arms Co., Seecamp, Smith and Wesson Inc., Sturm, Ruger and Co., Inc.
Steven Jay Harfenist, Carroll & Harfenist, New York City, for Defendant S.W. Daniels, Inc.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1313
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................. 1314
A. Pleadings .................................................................. 1314
B. Procedural History ......................................................... 1315
C. Facts Elicited During Discovery ............................................ 1315
1. Membership in Trade Associations ........................................ 1315
2. Lobbying Activity ....................................................... 1315
3. Marketing and Distribution .............................................. 1316
III. Constitutional and Statutory Limits on Plaintiffs' Claims ..................... 1316
A. First Amendment ............................................................ 1316
B. Second Amendment ........................................................... 1317
C. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme ............................................ 1318
1. Preemption of State Tort Law ............................................ 1319
2. Effect of Statutory Scheme on Duties Under State Tort Law ............... 1320
D. Application ................................................................ 1321
1. First Amendment ......................................................... 1321
2. Second Amendment ........................................................ 1321
3. Preemption .............................................................. 1321
4. Effect of Federal Statute on State Tort Duties .......................... 1321
IV. Law of Product Liability ...................................................... 1321
A. Generally .................................................................. 1322
B. Treatment of Guns Under Product Liability .................................. 1322
C. Ultrahazardous Activity .................................................... 1323
935 F. Supp. 1313D. Application of Law to Facts ................................................ 1324 V. Fraud ......................................................................... 1324 A. Law of Fraud ............................................................... 1324 B. Application ................................................................ 1325 VI. Collective Liability .......................................................... 1325 A. Applicable Law ............................................................. 1325 B. Choice-of-Law .............................................................. 1325 1. New York's Choice of Law Principles ..................................... 1325 2. Application ............................................................. 1325 C. Law of Summary Judgment .................................................... 1326 D. Law Applicable to Collective Liability ..................................... 1327 E. Application of Law to Facts ................................................ 1329 VII. Class Action Certification .................................................... 1331 A. Requirements ............................................................... 1331 B. Application ................................................................ 1332 VIII. Conclusion ................................................................... 1332
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Because discovery is not fully developed and plaintiffs appear to be unsure of their substantive legal theory and its factual underpinnings, much of this memorandum must be tentative and hypothetical. Nevertheless, enough has been shown and suggested by plaintiffs to make dismissal premature.
Plaintiffs are representatives of people who were shot and killed by individuals who illegally obtained handguns. They seek compensation in tort for the killings. Defendants are manufacturers of handguns. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class action under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) on the limited question of defendants' liability for alleged joint conduct or concerted action. Certification at this stage is not warranted.
Plaintiffs sue on a mass tort theory, analogizing handguns and their ammunition to a pathogen leading to latent injuries and the deaths of many thousands of people, much like claims associated with asbestos, agent orange, the dalkon shield, and silicone gel breast implants. See, e.g., Deborah R. Hensler, The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Mass Personal Injury Litigation, 73 Tex.L.Rev. 1587, 1595-97 (1995) (describing characteristics of mass torts); cf. Note, Absolute Liability for Ammunition Manufacturers, 108 Harv.L.Rev. 1679, 1681-82 (1995) (ammunition as pathogen). They point to statistics such as these: Each year, more than 600,000 firearm crimes are reported in the United States; the number of violent attacks involving firearms increased 55% between 1987 and 1992; about 1.3 million Americans faced assailants armed with guns in 1993; among people aged 15-25, one of every four deaths were by firearm; and gun-related homicides by juvenile offenders more than doubled between 1984 and 1992. See United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Firearms and Crimes of Violence: Selected Findings From National Statistical Series 3, 11, 13 (1994); Alfred Blumstein, Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit Drug Industry, 86 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 10, 24-26 (1994); Lois A. Fingerhut, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Firearm Mortality Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults 1-34 Years of Age, Trends and Current Status: United States 1985-90 1 (1993); Crimes Involving Handguns Rose in 1993, Report Shows: Semiautomatic Use in Juvenile Crime Is Up, N.Y.Times, Jul. 10, 1995, at A10; see also Children Carrying Weapons: Why the Recent Increase: Hearings Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992). The medical community recognizes the problem as almost a pandemic. See, e.g., Arthur L. Kellerman, Annotation: Firearm-Related Violence — What We Don't Know Is Killing Us, 84 Am.J.Pub. Health 541 (1994) ("Firearm-related deaths are a major public health problem in the United States."); Mark L. Rosenberg, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Presentation:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Olin Corp., No. 458
...a product cannot "give rise to liability absent a defect in the manufacture or design of the product itself." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1323 (E.D.N.Y.1996). To the extent that case suggests that there is no difference between a cause of action for negligent marketing of a prod......
-
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, No. 03 CV 2582(JBW).
...a handgun does not give rise to liability absent a defect in the manufacture or design of the product itself." Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1323 (E.D.N.Y.1996), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hamilton v. Beretta USA Corp., 264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir.2001). "For a viable New York tort l......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, No. CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...with leave to renew, on the ground that discovery was not yet complete and the issues not fully briefed. See Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1315, 1330 With discovery nearing completion, defendants again moved for summary judgement in November 1998, on the ground that no cause of ac......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, No. CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...plaintiffs' product liability and fraud claims but allowed them to proceed on a negligent marketing theory. See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1315 (E.D.N.Y. Additional plaintiffs intervened in April 1996 after the court granted leave to amend the Complaint to add plaintiffs. In Ma......
-
McCarthy v. Olin Corp., No. 458
...a product cannot "give rise to liability absent a defect in the manufacture or design of the product itself." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1323 (E.D.N.Y.1996). To the extent that case suggests that there is no difference between a cause of action for negligent marketing of a prod......
-
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, No. 03 CV 2582(JBW).
...a handgun does not give rise to liability absent a defect in the manufacture or design of the product itself." Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1323 (E.D.N.Y.1996), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hamilton v. Beretta USA Corp., 264 F.3d 21 (2d Cir.2001). "For a viable New York tort l......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, No. CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...with leave to renew, on the ground that discovery was not yet complete and the issues not fully briefed. See Hamilton v. Accu-tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1315, 1330 With discovery nearing completion, defendants again moved for summary judgement in November 1998, on the ground that no cause of ac......
-
Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, No. CV-95-0049 (JBW).
...plaintiffs' product liability and fraud claims but allowed them to proceed on a negligent marketing theory. See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307, 1315 (E.D.N.Y. Additional plaintiffs intervened in April 1996 after the court granted leave to amend the Complaint to add plaintiffs. In Ma......