On July 13, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered the offices of a law firm against whi

Question

On July 13, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered the offices of a law firm against which he had a grudge. Using two semiautomatic assault weapons (TEC-9 and TEC-DC9) manufactured and distributed by Navegar, Inc., he killed eight persons and wounded six others before killing himself. The survivors and the families of some of those who had died sued Navegar, based in part on negligence. They claimed that Navegar had a duty not to create risks to the public beyond those inherent in the lawful use of firearms. Please discuss the following questions: 1) Do you agree with the appellate court that Navegar could be held negligent in marketing the TEC-DC9? What should the California Supreme Court decide? 2) Should gun manufacturers EVER be held liable for deaths caused by nondefective guns? Why or why not? The subject is legal environment of business.

Explanation / Answer

1) Yes because claim of negligent marketing is deemed to be within the scope of section 1714.4, that statute will be too easily evaded by artful pleading but neither proper deference to legislative authority nor the legislative policy embodied in section 1714.4 precludes recognition of Navegar's ordinary duty of due care in its choice of marketing strategies.

2) As per Section 1714.4 ,Supreme court of california should not hold Navegar liable for killing becuase of its marketing of arm.It is in good sense of business and thus cannot be criminalise.

3) No because section 1714.4 itself states, that the statute's subject matter was solely liability for defective products

Reference: Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001)

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse O
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.