 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Gary v. Smith & Weson Corp.9/20/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Case Summary
Appellant-plaintiff City of Gary, Indiana, by its Mayor, Scott L. King ("the City"), appeals the trial court's dismissal of its suit against various handgun manufacturers, a handgun distributor, and various handgun dealers (collectively, "Appellees"). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Issues
The City raises eight issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as the following three:
I. whether the trial court properly dismissed the City's public nuisance claim;
II. whether the trial court properly dismissed the City's negligence claims; and
III. whether the trial court properly struck a proposed settlement agreement between the City and one of the Appellees from the City's first amended complaint.
Facts and Procedural History
Appellees either manufacture, distribute, or sell handguns. The City originally filed suit against Appellees in Lake County Superior Court, alleging public nuisance against all Appellees; negligent distribution, marketing, and failure to warn against all Appellees; and negligent design against manufacturer Appellees. The City sought compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages. On September 29, 1999, Appellees filed a notice of removal to federal court. On April 17, 2000, the federal court determined that there were no issues of federal law in the City's claims and remanded the case to the trial court. In May and June of 2000, Appellees filed motions to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. On January 12, 2001, the trial court granted Appellees' motions and dismissed all the City's claims in an order reading in relevant part as follows:
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
....
The parties defendant have been segregated by plaintiff's Complaint into the following categories, which identification said defendants seem to have accepted:
Manufacturers:
Smith & Wesson Corp.
F.I.E. Corp.
Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
Glock Corp.
Charter Arms Corp.
Savage Arms Corp.[*]
Interarms Corp.[*]
Harrington & Richardson Corp.[*]
Hi-Point Firearms Corp.
Sigarms Corp.[*]
Navegar, Inc. d/b/a Intratec USA Corp.
Bryco Arms Corp.
Kel-Tec Cnc, Corp.[*]
Phoenix Arms Corp.
Lorcin Engineering Corp.
St m, Ruger & Co. Corp.
Sundance Industries Corp.[*]
Taurus Firearms Corp.
Dealers:
Ameri-Pawn of Lake Station, Inc.
Blythe[']s Sport Shop, Inc.
Cash Indiana, Inc.
Fetla[']s Bargain Center, Inc.[*]
Jim Shema's Outdoor Sports
Westforth Sports, Inc.
Distributor:
B. L. Jennings, Inc.
Miscellaneous John Does:
It has been conceded that, basically, Manufacturers sell handguns to Distributors, who in turn sell to Dealers, who in turn sell to the general public. Manufacturers are precluded by law from selling direct to members of the general public. This lawsuit applies only to the sale and distribution of handguns; not long guns (rifles and/or shot guns).
During the course of proceedings, the City settled with defendant, Fetla[']s Bargain Center, Inc., and they are no longer a party. In addition, the City unilaterally filed with the Court a copy
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|