Product Liability Essay
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp
Plaintiff: In this particular case, the party who initiated the lawsuit was the city of Gary, Indiana, by its mayor, Scott L. King, with the intention of obtaining both injunctive relief and monetary compensation for the harm allegedly caused by the unlawful marketing and distribution of handguns.
Defendants:
Manufacturers -Smith & Wesson Corp., Beretta USA Corp., Glock Corp, Charter Arms Corp., Hi-Point Firearms Corp., Navegar, Inc., Intratec USA Corp., Bryco Arms Corp., Phoenix Arms Corp., Lorcin Engineering Corp., Sturm, Ruger & Co. Corp., & Taurus Firearms Corp
Wholesaler -B.L. Jennings, Inc.
Distributers - Ameri-Pawn of Lake Station, Ink., Blythe Sports Shop, Inc., Cash Indiana, …show more content…
When it comes to the CITY OF GARY, Indiana, vs. SMITH & WESSON case, the plaintiff asserts that the actions of manufacturers and dealers fall under a category of public nuisance because their illicit business interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life; therefore it is subject to action. From the defendant’s standpoint, their conduct is legislatively authorized and therefore cannot be a public nuisance; furthermore, they allege not having sufficient control over the handguns at the time of the injury to be liable for harm from their …show more content…
It had a multitude of parties involved and affected by the outcome. We believe the mayor of the City of Gay, Scott L King, had a good case against the defendants to hold them liable for damages caused by their products. A “sting” operation conducted by Gary Police Department uncovered evidence that the defendants were engaging in straw purchases, that were a major contributor toward crime within the city. The five distributor defendants should be held more liable than the others because they’re the main seller to the public. The 5 distributors are the ones who conduct the screening for applicants to obtain firearms. It is clear that the defendants are more concerned with profits than public responsibility. Although the city did not receive compensation for the suffering caused by the criminal and malpractices of the gun industry, the favorable outcome for the city, as well as the approval of injunctive relief, is a way of holding the gun industry accountable for their wrongdoings. If I were to decide the verdict for this particular case, along with stricter gun control laws, and that any business entity that is caught involved with straw purchases will pay heavy fines and harsher regulations. I would also have the defendants pay a small one-time fine that would go toward restoration of the
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp
Plaintiff: In this particular case, the party who initiated the lawsuit was the city of Gary, Indiana, by its mayor, Scott L. King, with the intention of obtaining both injunctive relief and monetary compensation for the harm allegedly caused by the unlawful marketing and distribution of handguns.
Defendants:
Manufacturers -Smith & Wesson Corp., Beretta USA Corp., Glock Corp, Charter Arms Corp., Hi-Point Firearms Corp., Navegar, Inc., Intratec USA Corp., Bryco Arms Corp., Phoenix Arms Corp., Lorcin Engineering Corp., Sturm, Ruger & Co. Corp., & Taurus Firearms Corp
Wholesaler -B.L. Jennings, Inc.
Distributers - Ameri-Pawn of Lake Station, Ink., Blythe Sports Shop, Inc., Cash Indiana, …show more content…
When it comes to the CITY OF GARY, Indiana, vs. SMITH & WESSON case, the plaintiff asserts that the actions of manufacturers and dealers fall under a category of public nuisance because their illicit business interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life; therefore it is subject to action. From the defendant’s standpoint, their conduct is legislatively authorized and therefore cannot be a public nuisance; furthermore, they allege not having sufficient control over the handguns at the time of the injury to be liable for harm from their …show more content…
It had a multitude of parties involved and affected by the outcome. We believe the mayor of the City of Gay, Scott L King, had a good case against the defendants to hold them liable for damages caused by their products. A “sting” operation conducted by Gary Police Department uncovered evidence that the defendants were engaging in straw purchases, that were a major contributor toward crime within the city. The five distributor defendants should be held more liable than the others because they’re the main seller to the public. The 5 distributors are the ones who conduct the screening for applicants to obtain firearms. It is clear that the defendants are more concerned with profits than public responsibility. Although the city did not receive compensation for the suffering caused by the criminal and malpractices of the gun industry, the favorable outcome for the city, as well as the approval of injunctive relief, is a way of holding the gun industry accountable for their wrongdoings. If I were to decide the verdict for this particular case, along with stricter gun control laws, and that any business entity that is caught involved with straw purchases will pay heavy fines and harsher regulations. I would also have the defendants pay a small one-time fine that would go toward restoration of the