Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:08 PM House JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 103 - LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN announced the next order of business is HB 103, "An Act relating to civil actions by municipalities and certain public corporations and prohibiting certain civil actions by them against firearms or ammunition manufacturers and dealers." CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN indicated that the committee will take up CSHB 103(CRA), and called on Representative Fred Dyson, sponsor of the bill. Number 0111 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, stated HB 103 is an Act that will prohibit political subdivisions from suing firearm manufacturers for the misuse of legally manufactured and distributed firearms. Six to seven cities have sued firearm manufacturers and are seeking judgment to cover the cost of the misuse of firearms. House Bill 103 is virtually the same as SB 77 which is on the way to the Senate floor. House Bill 103 will get to the House floor at roughly the same time, if this committee concurs with it. Number 0173 VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, noted that HB 103 and SB 77 are companion bills. They are identical in language and mirror each other. They were created in response to the lawsuits brought by municipalities throughout the United States against gun manufacturers to recoup damages from the illegal use of their products. Enfolded by recent tobacco lawsuits, municipalities are attempting to supplement their general fund with lawsuits directed at deep pockets - the manufacturers - for what they consider politically incorrect products. They claim that manufacturers allegedly have conspired to flood markets outside the cities with strict gun laws knowing that they will reach the cities through a black market. Further, the manufacturers are supposedly producing more powerful guns in order to increase their sales. It is obvious that the aim is to bankrupt the gun company by suing them for medical costs and monetary damages of gun related crimes. This litigation circumvents constitutional limits as well as democratic debate. The gun control movement thinks it can win without passing laws or winning elections. By using litigation to raise prices and to drive manufacturers out of business, gun controllers can reduce access to firearms without confronting the Second Amendment. Reasonable people see the clear intent in using the court to accomplish what any gun lobbyist has been unable to achieve in federal and state legislatures. This clear abuse of the tort liability system seeks to use potentially bankrupting lawsuits to force makers of legal, but politically incorrect, products to quit. The intent of this legislation is to prevent local governments from seeking reimbursements for the cost of gun related violence from businesses engaged in the lawful manufacture, sale, design or marketing of firearms or ammunition. It is not the intent of this legislation to prevent bringing an action for breach of contract or warranty purchased by a political subdivision or local government authority. Gun related manufacturing is a legal enterprise producing quality products that are lawfully and safely used by thousands of Alaskan for hunting, sport, recreation and protection. It really has more to do with the people than the guns. It's easier to blame the manufacturer than to have people take responsibility for their actions. In a nationwide survey of registered voters conducted by the American Firearms Council, 92 percent say that cities or states should not sue gun makers as a means to stop violence; and, 67 percent say that enforcing current laws against using firearms is more effective in addressing criminal violence than limiting the number of firearms an individual may purchase. He noted that the survey was done in October of 1998 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. Number 0341 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Representative Dyson's amendment and stated he is concerned that it would prohibit a lawsuit for a manufacturing defect such as shoddy metal. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was told by the bill drafter that poor workmanship is covered under breach of warranty. The amendment makes it clear. Number 0396 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether there was a case with a judgment against a gun manufacturer in Connecticut. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied there was a case with judgment in Brooklyn. It is subject to appeal. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what was the amount of damages. MR. GUNN replied $550,000 against 15 manufacturers. Number 0423 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT is concerned about unintended consequences. While no manufacturer should be liable for simply selling a lawful product that somebody misuses, there are appropriate legal theories for selling something for specific illegal purposes. The seller of a car is generally not liable in the case of a hit-and-run, but if that car is sold for a specific illegal purpose, the seller could be held liable. It almost crosses the line into criminal conspiracy. He said, "You cannot just hold Ruger liable for the fact that some criminals use Ruger, but if I come to a gun dealer and say, 'I want to kill the Pope.' Is that special Popemobile--what armaments can I--exactly do I use and what armor are piercing. And, they sell me exact tailored things that are only appropriate for a specific purpose with full knowledge of that purpose, you're not only criminally liable, but I think you probably should be civilly liable." It is a lawful sale, but the ultimate purpose was unlawful. It is related to the lawful sale, manufacture, design, or marketing of firearms, but it is not related to a negligent design, breach of contract, or breach of warranty. He asked Representative Dyson why the bill says "a person", if it is meant to stop municipal or governmental lawsuits. Number 0521 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied it seems that knowingly supplying equipment for a crime is accessory before the fact which is covered in other parts of state and probably federal law. Number 0539 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that Representative Dyson is right. A person on those facts could be criminally liable, but would be immune under this section from civil liability. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that person would be prosecuted under different sections. MR. GUNN noted the bill was heard in two other committees that both amended it to include other than municipalities such as a person. It was felt that the word "lawful" covered a conspiracy to sell a product for unlawful means. It isn't the intent to encourage unlawful acts by gun manufacturers. There is no "smoking gun" like in the tobacco suits. In those suits, there were misleading memorandums and intent by the manufacturers to mislead the public to believe that their product was not harmful. There hasn't been anything like that in this legislation. In fact, "it" says that the product is designed to be dangerous, but it is designed for lawful purposes: sport, recreation and protection. The intent of the bill is to prevent frivolous lawsuits against firms that manufacture a lawful product. Number 0658 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it is correct that a number of suits have been filed because of the Brooklyn case on behalf of municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON cited: New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Bridgeport, and Miami Dade. Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and San Francisco are coming. Several states are starting to limit the liability suits like Alaska. Number 0709 CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Dyson whether any of those cases have gone to settlement. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the Brooklyn case has been awarded and is now under appeal. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN called for a motion to adopt Representative Dyson's amendment. Number 0709 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [1-LS0503\D.1, Ford, 3/19/99]. There being no objection, it was so adopted. It reads as follows: Page 1, lines 9-10 Delete "for negligent design" Insert "resulting from a negligent design, a manufacturing defect" Number 0764 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he continues to worry about unintended consequences because the bill is drawn so broadly. Number 0848 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson whether this is based on handguns and not other firearms. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied he is not sure that handguns were specifically selected. The inference that many of the crimes are created by handguns is logical, but in times past it was traditional to use shotguns and Tommy guns, for example. Number 0883 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson and/or Mr. Gunn whether they have read any pleadings in court cases specifically directed at handguns or are they directed at firearms in general. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the manufacturers that were being sued produced firearms not just handguns. He doesn't believe that the suits were specific to handgun. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is concerned that including the manufacturer and seller brings liability problems. What about a situation where a youth picks up a weapon in a gun shop and inadvertently shots someone? There would be immunity in that case which is not the intent of the bill. Number 0940 CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN wondered whether the language "lawful sale" is the seller. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated it is being limited to the negligent design or manufacturing defect. According to her research, one-third of unintended shootings are when a child fires a loaded gun or when somebody discharges a gun believing that it wasn't loaded. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN said that is negligence of the parent. Number 1016 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what is "lawful marketing". CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated, if the owner of a shop loads a gun and something happens, then there is negligence, but it shouldn't fall back on the manufacturer of the firearm. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted the bill says "or seller". CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted a seller would not be exonerated, if that seller negligently loads a gun and allows somebody to shot it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the language is drafted disjunctively. It sets up a separate criteria for sellers. It doesn't read "and/or"; it reads "or". REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted "or" means both of them. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted "or" means either one of them. It is disjunctive, not conjunctive. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN said the fact that it reads "or" means that there doesn't have to be all of those for a cause of action. Number 1130 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated part of the difficulty is the wording "related to" - Page 1, line 8. It is very broad. It doesn't say "solely based on" or "primarily concerning". It could be written with less comprehensive language to accomplish its primary goal. The lawful sale of a lawful product without anything more can't form the basis of liability for a car or gun or whatever. The fact that a person might use it for an illegal activity is not a basis of reliability against the seller or manufacturer. Anything peripherally related to any of these things and anything otherwise irresponsible can be immunized. Number 1224 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted it is especially so because of the exception sentence - lines 9-10. It tries to get the exemption to the immunity back up to the seller. Number 1253 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Dyson why the seller vis-a-vis a retailer is included when it seems the actions are against manufacturers not retailers. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied the huge retailers in the country are considered to be deep pockets, and the small arms manufacturing industry is not doing well. The totality of the business is around $1.4 billion. He cited Fred Meyers, Sears and Roebuck, and K-Mart as deep pockets. Traditionally, the trend in court is to go after them, and they don't want to be improperly sued. When he bought a firearm at Fred Meyers the clerk would not put the ammunition on top of the counter and the firearm at the same time. The clerk walked with him out to the parking lot and handed him separate bags. Number 1421 CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN suggested changing the language "related to" with "predicated on" - Page 1, line 8. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it depends on how substantial that relationship has to be. "Related to" is 1 percent, "based solely on" is 100 percent, "primarily" is... He doesn't want to slow the bill down, but he wants it to reflect what the majority within the committee wants it to do. Number 1508 MR. GUNN stated the language is the exact wording of a Georgia law that passed its legislature and was signed into law by its governor. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted it was passed without the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted Alaska is different. Number 1549 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG understands that there is a public policy demand to immunize the sellers as well. But, the language is a little too broad as it relates to the retailer. He is not real comfortable with it, but he is very supportive of the bill itself. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg whether the word "predicated" relieves some of his concern. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied not really. It is the nexus between the act of selling and marketing that a whole plethora of different scenarios can come into play causing injury. Unless it can be separated and replaced with a different standard such as a higher level of negligence, there could be a lot of personal injury cases. Number 1649 CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked are the sellers at risk of liability when automobiles are recalled because of a defective design? "We want to make sure that the seller, unbeknownst to a flaw in the design, is not going to be held reliable because he's a deep pocket." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the seller shouldn't be responsible for a manufacturer problem. "It is not the act of selling per se, it's the act of being a merchandiser for manufactured merchandize is what we're trying to get at." Number 1700 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated it seems that Representative Rokeberg is dwelling on the term "marketing". She wondered whether "faulty marketing" could be included in the language just amended. That might not be the best term, but something like that to relieve his concern. Number 1745 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated as the bill is written now she thinks a loaded gun left on a counter that a child picks up would be covered by this statute when it is clearly negligent behavior. And, that's not the intent of the bill. Number 1801 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated this doesn't preclude a seller from being sued for negligence in leaving a loaded weapon where a child could misuse it. This only immunizes a seller against being sued through the business of selling it. He offered the language "based on" as an alternative for the language "related to". In addition, it wouldn't do a disservice to his intention to strike the word "marketing" from the bill. "And, frankly, as a certifiable gun nut, I am uncomfortable about some of the marketing that goes on in the firearm manufacturer that tends to be the approach. If you look at some of the quasi-underground books that are marketed on how to get anybody and how to do urban sniper fire against your enemies and convert your weapons into fully automatic, change you identity and how to escape, you know. Some of that stuff makes me uncomfortable." His suggestions are not an amendment, just respectful suggestions. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN noted there is still the word "sale". REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, and properly so. Number 1960 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated is seems that the committee is trying to separate the products from the actions. In other words, the product itself is exempt, but what is done with the product is not. Maybe, there is language that can separate the products and the actions. Number 1998 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that is precisely his point. It's the manufactured item that he's been talking about. He suggested language, "(indisc.) manufacturers or a retailer of that manufactured firearm or ammunition". It would focus the act on revolving around the handgun/firearm. It's not the act of selling that's immunized. "You're only a conduit, if you're a wholesaler or retailer. You're not the manufacturer. And, I think in the theory here is the creation of and manufacture of firearms that's causing the damage." CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated he would accept that, except the word "dealer" is included in the title. If the intent is to keep the dealer in the bill, he would suggest two paragraphs - one to deal with the manufacturer and one to deal with the dealer. It is too difficult to include both in one paragraph. Number 2100 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that typically a distributor is liable for a defective product, even if there isn't any negligence. A distributor has the right to go after a manufacturer in that case. The language, "based on", suggested by Representative Dyson solves most if not all of his concerns. Number 2156 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated adding the language, "or to the reckless endangerment by retailers", to line 8 would take care of her concern, as well as Representative's James and Rokeberg. If somebody put a loaded gun on a counter and a child picked it up, there wouldn't be a bar from suing. Number 2198 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated adding that language doesn't let them go back to the manufacturer. Number 2275 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete the language "related to" on line 8, and insert the language "based on". There being no objection, it was so moved. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to include the language "or" on line 8 between the words "manufacture," and "design,". There being no objection, it was so moved. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN asked whether there is still concern with gross negligence of the seller, or is this enough to allow the intention of the AS 09.65.155. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks so. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted by taking "marketing" out... Number 2448 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the title still refers to dealers. The committee is talking about two separate things. CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN stated, unless it is made very, very cumbersome, would it be better to have two separate... TAPE 99-17, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN-DESIGNEE GREEN continued. Can negligent endangerment cover everything a seller might do? he asked. That's what the committee is after. Number 0014 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that reckless endangerment is a higher standard than just negligence. She would feel more comfortable with just negligence because of that argument, but at least it would cover some of the worst cases of somebody leaving a loaded gun lying around. Number 0069 MR. JARDELL stated using the language, "based on the lawful sale", a cause of action wouldn't be based on the sale. There is an argument of relating an action to the sale with using the language, "related to the lawful sale". In the case of the language, "based on the lawful sale", the cause of action would be based on the negligent handling of the weapon. It would fix the problem of ancillary negligence. General negligence would still be there as long as it's not based on the actual sale. The New Orleans case and several others have included the dealers in an attempt to get them to stop selling the firearms through legal fees. Saying that they should have known that these person were going to use the weapons or they put an unusually large number on the street. There are some reasons to include dealers, and there are some reasons to preclude blanket immunity for negligent handling of firearms. Number 0223 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, with that testimony on the record as the intent, she is comfortable with it. Number 0241 MR. GUNN pointed out that one of the lawsuits in New Orleans includes the people who sell firearms which is why marketing is included in the bill. Number 0270 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move CSHB 103(CRA), as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 103(JUD) was so moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|