The American company Remington Arms will pay compensation of R$ 73 million (R$ 379 million) to the families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre, which took place in 2012, in the first case in which a firearms manufacturer is held responsible in court. for a mass shooting in the United States.
The company settled Tuesday after being sued by the families of four children and five adults murdered in Newton, Connecticut. On December 14, 2012, a 20-year-old man, Adam Lanza, murdered 20 students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Remington semi-automatic rifle. The shooter killed himself.
The nine families filed the suit in 2014 and have spent years in court trying to hold the company that made and sold the rifle used in the attack to account, despite a US law that protects gun makers and dealers from most civil litigation.
In March 2019, the Connecticut State Supreme Court authorized the action to proceed. The decision was based on a state law that protects consumers from fraudulent marketing.
To circumvent legal protection for manufacturers, they claimed that the marketing of Remington firearms contributed to the massacre.
“They had the energy, willingness and motivation to do whatever it took so that other families don’t have to go through the pain and loss that they went through,” said one of the lawyers, Josh Koskoff, after the court victory.
Under the decision, Remington will have to disclose results of internal investigations into the case. Payment of indemnities will be made through insurance policies.
Other advocates of tighter control over gun sales have been encouraged to follow this strategy, including the New Jersey attorney general, who is investigating Smith & Wesson’s marketing.
Mexico filed a lawsuit in the US last year asking for $10 billion from various weapons manufacturers, accusing them of marketing their weapons to the country’s underworld.
Last year, New York enacted a law that allows firearms sellers, manufacturers and distributors to be prosecuted for creating a “public nuisance” that jeopardizes the safety and health of the public. The companies challenged the law in court.
Pro-gun groups have also used the courts and state legislatures to fight for more permissive laws. They won Supreme Court victories in 2008 and 2010, which established an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.
