Camden County Board Of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta, U.S.A. Corp.

273 F.3d 536 (3rd Cir. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Camden County (P) alleged that Beretta's (D) marketing and distribution of handguns created and contributed to the widespread criminal use of handguns in the County. P invoked three theories of liability: negligence, negligent entrustment, and public nuisance and prayed for compensation for the additional costs incurred to abate the alleged public nuisance, an injunction requiring the manufacturers to change their marketing and distribution practices, and other compensatory and punitive damages. Ds filed and stated that P had failed to state claims on which relief could be granted and that, in any event, damages were barred by the municipal cost recovery rule. Ds also contended that the claims were barred by New Jersey's product liability statute, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause. The District Court granted Ds' motion to dismiss the complaint. It dismissed the two negligence claims after a six-factor analysis found proximate cause lacking. It also found that the public nuisance claim was defective because P had not alleged 'the required element that Ds exercised control over the nuisance to be abated. P appealed the dismissal of the public nuisance claim. P contends that Ds 'knowingly facilitated, participated in, and maintain a handgun distribution system that provides criminals and youth easy access to handguns.' Thus, Ds knowingly created the public nuisance of 'criminals and youth with handguns.' P contends Ds released into the market substantially more handguns than they expect to sell to law-abiding purchasers; D continues to use certain distribution channels, despite knowing that those channels regularly yield criminal end-users; Ds do not limit the number, purpose, or frequency of handgun purchases and do not supervise these sales or require their distributors to do so; Ds' contracts with distributors do not penalize distributor practices that facilitate criminal access to handguns; Ds design, produce, and advertise handguns in ways that facilitate sales to and use by criminals; Ds receive significant revenue from the crime market, which in turn generates more sales to law-abiding persons wishing to protect themselves; and Ds fail to take reasonable measures to mitigate the harm to P.