Just two days after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, a judge in Connecticut issued an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by the manufacturer of the AR-15 semiautomatic machine gun used by the Sandy Hook Elementary School murderer. Though the manufacturers and models differ, the Sig Sauer MCX used in Orlando is of similar aesthetics and lethality as the AR-15.
This ruling does not mean the Sandy Hook plaintiffs will prevail, however. Nor, unfortunately, does it afford much hope for potential Orlando plaintiffs hoping to hold Sig Sauer accountable.
The Sandy Hook plaintiffs are seeking to hold, among other defendants, Bushmaster, manufacturer of the AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook tragedy, liable for, among other things, the wrongful deaths of those slain at the elementary school. Among its 33 counts, the complaint alleges that the sale of the AR-15 to a civilian market posed an unreasonable risk of physical injury to others, as a mass casualty event was within the scope of the risk created by the defendant’s marketing and sales; that the AR-15’s ability to fire rounds quickly created an unreasonable risk that it would inflict great casualties before police intervention; and that the defendant “unethically, oppressively, immorally, and unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers…with the expectation and intent that possession and control of these weapons would be shared with and/or transferred to unscreened civilian users following purchase.” The defense countered that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) affords gun manufacturers broad immunity for the shooting deaths administered by eventual purchasers of its firearms.
Last month, we provided some 
Generally, Continuances favor the Defendant—Not You. As a plaintiff, you are not compensated until settlement or trial. Meanwhile, your bills are adding up, your future remains uncertain, and the phrase “the wheels of justice turn slowly…” is not exactly soothing.
A Note on Contracting Away Liability for Sports-Related Injuries
In recent years, liability waivers have become standard procedure in virtually every association between corporations and individuals. Whether a jet ski tour, your typical gym membership, or even placing your child in summer camp, corporations of all sizes are aggressively protecting themselves with liability waivers. In many cases, corporations are required to obtain liability waivers as a condition of their insurance policy. These waivers contractually preclude individuals from pursuing any kind of claim in the event of injury, even those caused by the negligence of the corporation’s employees. The waivers are typically buried within other tedious paperwork and executed by individuals without much thought. After all, no one expects to become injured. These waivers then become potentially devastating in the event of a serious or even fatal injury. Because liability waivers are presumptively valid under Florida law, they deprive injury victims of their day in court on a daily basis.
Suppose you are injured in an automobile collision caused by a negligent driver. You then go to a duly-licensed physician for medical care. You certainly trust your physician and her dedication to the well-being of her patients. Ultimately, your physician provides treatment and even surgery. Down the road of litigation, the negligent driver’s attorney claims that the surgery you underwent was medically unnecessary or unreasonable. Assuming this treatment was “unreasonable,” should you be on the hook to pay for it? Is it your fault if your physician provided unnecessary treatment by mistake or for financial gain? Of course not!
