After reading this: The traditional claim of $$negligent entrustment$$ does not work in the Soto v$.$ Bushmaster Firearms International LLC case as grounds for holding Bushmaster liable for what Adam Lanza did. This is because the claim requires proof that the person entrusted with the weapon had actual knowledge of the dangerousness of the weapon and that the person entrusting the weapon had reason to believe that the person would dangerously use the weapon. Sandy Soto argues that the Bushmaster $$negligently entrusted$$ the AR$-15$ rifle to Adam Lanza that was used in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, in $2012.$ In this case, Bushmaster did not know the dangerousness of the weapon and did not have reason to believe that Adam Lanza would be dangerously using the weapon.

Sandy Soto, however, argues that Bushmaster should be held liable under a theory of strict liability. This means that the manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused by a product. They said that the AR$-15$ was defective because it was designed as a military weapon and not for civilian use. The court ruled that the rifle was not defective and that Bushmaster rather did not violate any laws in the design or manufacture but did leave open if he would be liable for negligent marketing.

The court$$s new $$theory$$ of liability under which a gun maker can be held liable for the injuries caused when a consumer uses that gun is based on product liability. The court held that the gun manufacturer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. This can impact the gun industry and assist in increasing safety measures and awareness while also creating greater accountability for gun manufacturers.

$$ tell us whether a business that makes knives should be held liable for damages when that knife is used in the commission of a crime. What if the knife maker advertises its knife in a way that accentuates its ability to $$slice and dice$$ almost anything?