The mother of letter carrier Joseph S. Ileto, who was slain by a white supremacist, is entitled to move forward with her lawsuit against manufacturers of weapons used to kill her son, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Friday.
The ruling brought a strongly worded dissent by several of the court's judges, who said the precedent it set could threaten many manufacturers other than gun companies.
On Aug. 10, 1999, Buford O. Furrow Jr. sprayed a Jewish community center in the San Fernando Valley with automatic weapons fire, wounding five people. Later in the day, he shot Ileto. The families of three children wounded by Furrow joined Ileto's mother, Lilian, in suing Glock Inc. and China North Industries Corp., which made the guns Furrow used.
The families contend that the gun companies produced and distributed significantly more guns than possibly could be purchased by law-abiding customers. The suit alleges that many of the weapons are sold at gun shows and through so-called kitchen table dealers, who may be licensed but are loosely regulated.
Manufacturers frequently hawk their products with the illicit market in mind, the suit alleges. In particular, the case points to Glock's promotion of its 9-millimeter "pocket rocket" concealable handgun, the one Furrow is believed to have used to shoot Ileto.
Last fall, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the case could go forward to a trial, but Glock asked the full 26-member court to reconsider the ruling. Friday's decision by the full court came without a formal opinion. But eight of the 26 judges signed the lengthy dissent, predicting dire consequences for the state's economy if the decision stands.
"The potential impact of the ... decision is staggering," wrote Judge Consuelo Callahan for the eight judges, who are generally considered among the court's more conservative members.
The problem, the dissenters said, is that the ruling allows a company to be sued if a customer uses one of its products in an illegal manner.
Under the court's decision, "any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product," Callahan wrote.
In the initial three-judge panel decision, Judge Richard Paez had said there was an important rationale for allowing such trials to take place: prompting gun manufacturers to take more care in overseeing how their products are sold.
