Negligence: On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Gerri 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. They offered evidence that Navegar new or should have known that the assault guns had "no legitimate sporting or self-defenses purposes" and that the guns were "particularly well adapted to military-style assault on large numbers of people." They also claimed that the TEC-DC9 advertising "targets a criminal clientele," further increasing the risk of harm.

A California trial court granted summary judgment in Navegar's favor. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the case should go to trial. The court stated that "the likelihood that a third persons would make use of the TEC-DC9 in the kind of criminal rampage Ferri perpetrated is precisely the hazard that would support a determination that these facts, consider the following questions. Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 465, 28 P.3d 116, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 (2001).

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? Before answering these questions, you may wish to review the elements of negligence.

2. Should gun manufacturers ever be held liable for deaths caused by non-defective guns? Why or why not?

3. Generally, do you believe that policy decisions regarding the liability of gun manufacturers should be made by the courts, whose job is to interpret the law or by congress and state legislatures, whose job is to make the law?