In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Appeals court rules gun makers, sellers not liable

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited August 2002 in General Discussion
Appeals court rules gun makers, sellers not liable in slayings
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

People who manufacture and sell guns that later are used to kill someone cannot be held liable, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In a unanimous decision Thursday the three-judge panel threw out the claims of the families of three employees of an East Side Pizza Hut who were shot to death during a 1999 robbery.

The appeals court rejected the families' contention that the defendants had a duty to have procedures designed to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them or foreseeably might commit a crime.

An appeal to the state Supreme Court is expected.

The case involves the path of the weapon used in the Pizza Hut slayings, a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol from Glock Inc., which manufactured it and sold it to Centerfire Inc., a retail outlet.

The lawsuit said Centerfire sold it to Stanley Woznicki, who had bought more than 20 guns from the retailer in the year before he purchased the Glock that was later used in the Pizza Hut killings.

Woznicki, in turn, frequently attended gun shows in Tucson operated by Pat and Joan McMann. The lawsuit says Woznicki sold the gun to Kajornsak "Tom" Prasertphong at a 1998 McMann-sponsored gun show at the Tucson Convention Center.

Prasertphong and Christopher "Bo" Huerstel were convicted of murder and sentenced to die for the January 1999 murders of Pizza Hut employees James Bloxham, 17, Melissa Moniz, 20, and Robert Curry, 44.

In their lawsuit, the relatives of the three victims said all the defendants were negligent.

Judge Joseph Howard, writing for the appellate court, said there generally is no duty under Arizona law to control the conduct of a third party.

He said there are a few narrow exceptions, such as a parent-child relationship or situations where there is a relationship between the defendant and the victim, such as an innkeeper and a guest.

Despite that, the families said their lawsuits should be allowed to proceed.

Howard said the court would not go along - particularly because neither Glock nor the McManns were responsible for the gun winding up in the hands of the killer.

Anyway, he said, letting the families sue serves no purpose.

"Third parties often can legally obtain handguns from private individuals or illegally on the street," Howard wrote.

"Imposing additional liability on manufacturers and gun show operators would not have a protective effect."

Pima County Superior Court Judge Ted Borek originally dismissed the families' lawsuit in August 2001, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants had a duty to conform to "certain standards of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk."
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/fri/20830pizzahutruling.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sign In or Register to comment.