Product Liability
Aug. 16, 2002
Gun Liability Bill Annulling 'Navegar' Advances in Senate
SACRAMENTO - A proposal to repeal the special exemption from civil liability enjoyed by gunmakers in California cleared the state Senate on Wednesday and now goes back to the Assembly floor, where it could face a tough fight.
Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, introduced the bill, AB496 in response to the state Supreme Court's decision in the 101 California Street shooting case. Merrill v. Navegar, 26 Cal. 4th 465 (2001).
In Navegar, the justices ruled 5-1 that a 1983 statute protecting gunmakers from product liability lawsuits also barred a negligence action against the maker of the assault weapon used in the 1993 massacre at San Francisco's Pettit & Martin law firm. Eight people were killed and six wounded before gunman Gian Luigi Ferri killed himself.
Koretz's bill would repeal the statute, Civil Code Section 1714.4, and make it clear that gunmakers can be held liable for the negligent design, distribution and marketing of firearms.
"This body in 1983 exempted one manufacturer in the state of California from product liability, and we are about to repeal that, no more, no less," said Sen. Don Perata, D-Alameda, who carried Koretz's bill on the Senate floor. "It's a bill that deals with consumers and the right for people to go to court and have their day."
The measure passed the Senate on a party line vote of 22-13, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing.
Those who spoke against the bill in Wednesday's Senate floor debate said it really was intended to do away with guns.
Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said the bill was a "means to an end," with the "ultimate goal" of making life so difficult for gunmakers that they will stop selling or manufacturing their products in California.
Another opponent, Sen. Ray Haynes, R-Riverside, argued that the liability exemption for gunmakers was reasonable because of their products' dangerous nature.
"One of the exceptions to [product liability] is if the product is inherently dangerous," he said.
But guns aren't to blame for killings like that at 101 California Street, he said: "It's the nut behind the trigger that causes the damage, not the gun itself."
In response, Perata argued that the measure was not meant to restrict gun ownership or purchases. Instead, he said, the bill was aimed at negligent behavior by gunmakers.
Navegar advertised the gun used at 101 California, the TEC-DC9 semiautomatic assault pistol, as fingerprint-resistant and having rapid firepower, Perata noted.
"That was the basis upon which the victims' families sought relief in the court, and they were told that under this law today the manufacturers were exempt," he said.
"Now I would leave it to all of you, if you don't think that kind of advertisement at least warrants some question about whether there is liability, then vote against the bill," he told his colleagues.
But if other products, from cars to baby carriages, were advertised in a manner that "flunked the test of reasonableness, common sense, fairness, humanity, whatever, then it is pretty clear" that those manufacturers could be held liable, he said.
The Koretz bill goes next to the Assembly floor for a concurrence vote, which is usually a pro forma procedure. In this case, however, the bill was completely reworked after it reached the Senate, so it will be the first time the Assembly has seen the bill with the liability provisions added.
An aide to Koretz said the bill's supporters were "counting votes" in the Assembly but hoped to secure the 41 supporters needed to pass the measure. She also said Gov. Gray Davis has indicated he intends to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
A nearly identical measure, SB682, introduced by Perata in the Senate, is pending on the Assembly floor. Koretz's office said both bills could be taken up soon.
The deadline for passing bills in the Legislature is Aug. 31.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com