Sandy Hook families say gun maker negligent, as arguments begin in suit over school shooting Remington lawyers argue that firearm used in school shooting was obtained lawfully

ARNOLD GOLD — NEW HAVEN REGISTER Nicole Hockley, left, addresses the media at a press conference at the law offices of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport on Monday. Hockley’s 6-year-old son Dylan was killed in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012. At right are family members of those who were killed. less ARNOLD GOLD — NEW HAVEN REGISTER Nicole Hockley, left, addresses the media at a press conference at the law offices of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport on Monday. Hockley’s 6-year-old ... more Photo: Journal Register Co. Photo: Journal Register Co. Image 1 of / 9 Caption Close Sandy Hook families say gun maker negligent, as arguments begin in suit over school shooting 1 / 9 Back to Gallery

BRIDGEPORT >> A judge started hearing arguments Monday but made no ruling on whether the lawsuit families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting filed against the maker of one of the firearms used by the shooter should move forward.

The families argue that Remington, manufacturer of the Bushmaster model AR-15, was negligent in its marketing of the weapon to the public. A model of the firearm was used by Adam Lanza during his deadly rampage in Newtown on Dec. 14, 2012.

Attorney Josh Koskoff is the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, who include families of nine of the 26 victims killed in the shooting. The lawsuit is claiming negligent entrustment of the seller, distributors and manufacturers of the firearm, which suggests the three are partially liable for its lethal use in December 2012.

Koskoff mentioned some of the claims he would later present in court during a press conference prior to the hearing. He called the firearm an “instrument of war” developed for the U.S. military.

“That same weapon was found on the classroom floor of Victoria Soto’s classroom, classroom 10, on December 14, 2012. That’s why this is a lawsuit,” Koskoff said, mentioning the slain teacher whose family members are among the plaintiffs.

Defense attorneys, which include lawyers for Riverview, the gun’s seller, and Camfour, its distributor, argued Monday that they’re protected from litigation by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. The act gives such parties immunity from liability when their firearms are used in crimes, they argued. The act was enacted by Congress in 2005 and signed by President George W. Bush.

Quinnipiac University School of Law Professor William Dunlap said that there are some exceptions in PLCAA that would allow a firearms manufacturer to be sued, including defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and negligence. The latter is what the plaintiffs argue, an act called negligent entrustment.

Dunlap said this is typically used in automobile cases, which allows a victim of a car accident to sue the owner and the driver of the car, in part because an owner may be found to have been negligent in entrusting the vehicle to the driver.

Standing in front of the seated family members of Sandy Hook victims, attorney James B. Vogts, who’s representing Remington, argued the case represents a “threshold” issue, and that Remington is not a seller based on definition of the term in PLAAC. He said this exception rule does not apply to Remington, which only manufacturers the firearms. Vogts requested that the case be dismissed following his opening remarks. The request was denied by Judge Barbara Bellis.

Koskoff disagreed with Vogts’ argument, saying that Remington is a seller by virtue of its size and its marketing scheme. He pointed out that the manufacturer regularly markets the gun toward young men and pushes the firearm into the hands of consumers who are not suited to handle it. He said the public has demonstrated “tragically” that they cannot be entrusted with that firearm. He noted that a similar model gun was found near the bodies of the San Bernardino terrorists.

Koskoff said during the hearing that PLCAA is a “gift” to the firearm industry because of the protection it affords, but it does not allow negligence.

“These are not weapons designed for home defense, these weapons aren’t designed to hunt, they’re designed to kill,” Koskoff said during the press conference.

The defense attorneys pointed out that the firearm was lawfully obtained by Lanza’s mother, Nancy, and that PLCAA was enacted precisely to avoid such lawsuits that would attempt to hold companies liable for lawful sales. Christopher Renzulli said that his clients lawfully distributed the firearm, following regulations. He added that the firearm was ultimately used in the “heinous act” by another party who was not the original buyer.

This argument was reiterated by attorney Peter Berry, who is representing Riverview Gun Sales in East Winsdor, which sold the gun to Nancy Lanza.

“No one entrusted that weapon to Adam Lanza,” Berry said near the conclusion of the hearing.

Vogts argued that allowing the lawsuit to move forward could potentially put other gun manufacturers at risk of being sued even if their weapons are lawfully purchased and used unlawfully. Remington attempted to move the lawsuit to federal court in January 2015, but U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny returned the case to state court in October, where legal experts believe it has a better chance of succeeding.

Several of the family members attended the press conference prior to the hearing, including Mark Barden, the father of Daniel, 7, who was among the children killed in the shooting. Barden, who also attended the hearing said during the press conference that, among other things, the families are seeking “accountability.”

“We feel that we deserve our day in court and that’s what we’re asking from today, is that this case proceeds through the normal process,” Barden said.

A status conference on the matter is scheduled for April 19. Bellis said that she may reach a decision before that status conference, though it’s unlikely. Dunlap said he expects the judge probably won’t make a decision for weeks.

If the lawsuit goes forward, it would be just the third case involving claims of gun manufacturer or seller negligence to move forward to a trial phase. In June 2015, a jury sided with a gun dealer in Juneau, Alaska, in a wrongful death lawsuit, while later in October, a jury found a gun manufacture and its owners liable after their firearms were used to wound two officers.

Reach Esteban L. Hernandez at 203-680-9901