 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia v. Beretta4/21/2005
complaint "which defendant and corresponding [machine gun or assault weapon] was involved in their respective injury or death of the relevant decedent." The court acknowledged that " he involvement of a recovered weapon might potentially moot many of the legal deficiencies associated with the plaintiffs' reliance on the ," but concluded that since "none of the individual plaintiffs bases his or her case on weapons that were actually recovered, their claims are pled on pure speculation" (emphasis in original). In our view, requiring the plaintiffs to identify with particularity the weapons that caused their injuries and the manufacturers of those weapons at this early stage of the proceedings is contrary to the usual rules of pleading, and does not justify dismissal under Rule 12 (b)(6).
In substance, each individual plaintiff alleged that the injuries of which he or she complains were caused by an assault weapon or a machine gun as defined by the SLA.
"Under conventional liberal rules of 'notice' pleading," West v. Morris, 711 A.2d 1269, 1271 (D.C. 1998); see Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8 (a), those allegations were sufficient to state a claim because dismissal under Rule 12 is proper only if it is apparent "beyond doubt the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief." Owens v. Tiber Island Condo. Ass'n, 373 A.2d 890, 893 (D.C. 1977). See also Diamond v. Davis, 680 A.2d 364, 371 (D.C. 1996) ("Under the Superior Court Civil Rules . . . the plaintiff need only plead facts sufficient to put the defendants on notice of the claims brought against them. A plaintiff need not plead his evidence at all.") (internal citation omitted); Vincent v. Anderson, 621 A.2d 367, 372 (D.C. 1993) (issue of "whether or not appellant had available evidence sufficient to prove the allegations in [their] complaint" "really had nothing to do with the legal sufficiency of the complaint").
The trial court found "no excuse for [each plaintiff's] inability to assert which defendant's weapon was used to harm him, if this fact is knowable at all," but that criticism is premature, as is the court's comment that the defendant manufacturers and distributors "surely have no access to the weapons that were physically associated" with the individual plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs point to several avenues for linking a firearm to a particular manufacturer that may be open to them in discovery, and even if all seem "speculative" to us as a way of arriving at that link, none may be rejected at this stage. See Arnold v. Moore, 980 F. Supp. 28, 37 (D.D.C. 1997) (dismissal inappropriate even though prisoner-plaintiff had "fail to identify or name the [individual prison-officer] defendants who allegedly assaulted "; " f, after discovery, the plaintiff still has not provided the names of the defendant . . . officers . . ., the Court may make a determination at that time whether . . . judgments should be granted in favor of the defendants"); and see, by contrast, Bly v. Tri-Cont'l Indus., Inc., 663 A.2d 1232, 1236 (D.C. 1995) (summary judgment properly granted manufacturers after discovery for "lack of evidence as to which of [defendant's] products" caused plaintiffs' injuries).
In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), the Supreme Court stated:
ll the Rules require is "a short and plain statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which its rests. . . . Such simplified "notice pleading" is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|