Hamilton v. Accu-Tek

62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (1999)

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

All the plaintiffs have one thing in common; they were shot with handguns and severely injured or killed. Ps sued numerous handgun manufacturers on a negligent market theory. Ps claim that Ds marketed and distributed handguns negligently, proximately causing each of the seven shootings at issue. Ds contend that the sole proximate cause of the murders and shootings in these cases was criminal conduct on the part of the shooters and others. With respect to Stephen Fox (P) and Gail Fox (P), the jury calculated total damages of $3,950,000 and $ 50,000 respectively, to be assessed against the three defendants found liable in the percentages indicated above --American Arms, Inc. (.23%), Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (6.03%), and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc. (6.8%). At the close of Ps' case, Ds moved, pursuant to Rule 50(a), for judgment as a matter of law. The decision was reserved, and the motion was renewed post-verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b). Ds argue that (1) they owed Ps no legal duty; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's findings of negligence and proximate cause; (3) market share liability does not apply; and (4) plaintiffs' proof with respect to market share was inadequate to support the jury charge and verdict.