(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
Nancy Lanza didn't use the AR. Even though plaintiff's will likely be able to show she bought it for Adam, that is not the defendants' responsibility.
Yes, Bushmasters goofy "man card" advertising is marketing based on "having this badass military weapon that's basically the exact same thing that our solider have carried from Vietnam to Iraq. And that's what you need", but neither the gun, nor the ads, are illegal. This suit seems to be exactly what the PLCAA is supposed to guard against.
But the judge is allowing it to continue, creatively based on "errors" made by the defendants in their motion to dismiss vs motion to strike; at that point she did not consider the merits of the negligent entrustment theory.
So, the plaintiffs are going to hope they find some thing that sticks, but how that fits with the specifics of Negligent Exception in this case, I do not see.
"Deceptive advertising, advertising despite knowing certain things––that's a little bit more analogous. Negligent entrustment is kind of a different theory.
Ok, so what if you go through discovery and don't find something that proves your theory, but merely suggest it's true? Or what if you find nothing at all?
"Well, obviously we have to find the facts the prove our case. If we don't find the facts that prove our case, defendants get another chance at the end of discovery to dismiss our case. So they get one shot at the beginning and and one after. So us going to trial is dependent upon us finding the facts.
It's hard to know exactly what we'll find, but there's a deep level of intuitiveness to the theory of our case in terms of [the company] taking a military weapon, selling it to the public, and marketing it as basically a mass casualty weapon, and continuing to market and sell it that way, despite it being used in repeated mass shootings and shootings that are more fatal than any other type of shootings. The story really speaks for itself—it's hard to say where discovery will lead us, but we are confident it will lead us toward trial."
ETA: 2 YEARS of discovery - I do hope the poor plaintiffs have VERY deep pockets.
= new reply since forum marked as read