Smith & Wesson to Face Lawsuit Over Highland Park Shooter

A lawsuit involving the Highland Park mass shooting raises questions about when gun manufacturers and retailers may face civil liability for alleged negligent marketing or other wrongful conduct.

It is generally very difficult to hold a gun manufacturer liable for the criminal conduct of an individual gun owner. However, a wrongful death lawsuit is moving forward against Smith & Wesson that alleges the gun manufacturer may bear some responsibility for the mass shooting that occurred in Highland Park, Illinois, on July 4, 2022.

An Illinois court ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the manufacturer of the firearm used in the Highland Park shooting can proceed toward trial.

The case raises important legal questions concerning manufacturer immunity, firearm marketing, retailer conduct, and the circumstances in which victims and surviving family members may be permitted to pursue civil claims against parties connected to a weapon used in a criminal act.

This article provides a general discussion of the allegations and legal issues involved in the reported lawsuit. For advice regarding a wrongful death or personal injury case involving your own circumstances, contact an experienced attorney at Patel Law, PC.

Quick Answer: Can a Gun Manufacturer Be Sued After a Criminal Shooting?

Federal law provides substantial protections to firearm manufacturers and dealers when their products are used in crimes. However, certain exceptions may allow civil claims to move forward depending on the specific allegations, including claims involving alleged violations of applicable laws or other wrongful conduct connected to the marketing or sale of a firearm.

Analyzing the Claims Made in the Lawsuit

Several families of victims and survivors filed claims against Smith & Wesson, the manufacturer of the M&P 15, an AR-15-style firearm reportedly used in the Highland Park shooting. The lawsuit also includes claims involving firearm retailers connected to the eventual sale of the weapon.

The claims were brought on behalf of families of individuals killed during the shooting, survivors, and other individuals affected by the events.

According to the allegations described in reporting about the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contend that Smith & Wesson marketed the firearm in a manner that allegedly targeted younger or emotionally vulnerable consumers despite the weapon’s association with other mass shootings.

The plaintiffs’ legal theory focuses in part on whether alleged negligent or unlawful marketing practices could fall outside the protections ordinarily provided to firearm manufacturers and sellers.

The Firearm Manufacturer

The lawsuit includes allegations against Smith & Wesson concerning the marketing of the firearm involved in the shooting.

Firearm Retailers

The claims also involve retailers connected to the sale of the firearm and questions regarding whether the weapon was lawfully and appropriately sold.

Alleged Marketing Conduct

The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturer’s marketing practices may have contributed to the circumstances surrounding the weapon’s use.

A Potential Exception to Immunity

The court’s decision allows the plaintiffs to continue pursuing claims based on allegations that may fall within an exception to the legal protections generally available to firearm manufacturers and sellers.

Why the Alleged Marketing Practices Matter

One of the most significant legal issues raised in the lawsuit involves the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning how the firearm was marketed.

Gun manufacturers and dealers generally receive significant protection from civil liability when a firearm is later misused by another person in the commission of a crime. However, those protections may not necessarily prevent every possible lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in this case argue that the alleged marketing of the firearm created a basis for liability separate from simply manufacturing a lawful product that was later misused by another person.

The Difference Between Product Use and Alleged Wrongful Conduct

A central issue in cases involving manufacturer liability can be whether the lawsuit is based solely on the criminal misuse of a product or whether the plaintiff alleges separate wrongful conduct by the manufacturer or seller. The specific facts and legal claims asserted can significantly affect whether a lawsuit is permitted to proceed.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, commonly known as the PLCAA, is a federal law enacted in 2005 that provides significant protections to firearm manufacturers and dealers from many civil lawsuits arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.

In general, the law was designed to prevent firearm manufacturers and sellers from automatically being held financially responsible simply because a legally manufactured or sold firearm was later used by another person to commit a crime.

However, the PLCAA does not necessarily prevent every lawsuit involving a firearm manufacturer or dealer. Certain legal exceptions may apply depending on the allegations and the laws allegedly violated.

Immunity Does Not Always End the Legal Analysis

Whether a firearm manufacturer or seller can be held liable depends heavily on the specific facts of the case and the legal claims being asserted. Courts may need to determine whether a claim falls within the protections of federal law or qualifies for a recognized exception.

Why the Court’s Decision Is Significant

The Illinois court’s decision allowing the wrongful death lawsuit to move forward is significant because lawsuits against firearm manufacturers are often challenged at an early stage based on the protections provided by the PLCAA.

Allowing the case to proceed does not necessarily mean that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail. Rather, it means that the legal claims at issue were permitted to continue through the court process based on the allegations and arguments considered by the court.

As the case proceeds, the parties may seek additional evidence and information concerning the marketing, sale, and circumstances surrounding the firearm involved in the Highland Park shooting.

Understanding Wrongful Death Claims Against Negligent Parties

Wrongful death lawsuits may arise when a person dies because of another party’s wrongful act, negligence, or other legally actionable conduct.

Depending on the circumstances, a wrongful death claim may involve an individual, a business, an employer, a manufacturer, a property owner, or another potentially responsible party.

Issues That May Be Investigated in a Wrongful Death Case

How the death occurred
Whether another party’s conduct contributed to the death
Whether a duty of care existed
Whether that duty was allegedly breached
Whether the alleged conduct caused or contributed to the death
The damages and losses suffered by surviving family members
Whether multiple parties may share responsibility

Talk to a Decatur, IL Personal Injury Lawyer Today

Patel Law, PC represents the interests of Illinois residents and families pursuing claims against parties whose negligent or wrongful conduct may have caused serious injuries or death.

An experienced Champaign personal injury lawyer at Patel Law, PC can discuss the circumstances of your case and help you better understand the legal options that may be available.