Judge says Danforth mass shooting victims have the right to sue arms manufacturer Smith & Wesson

A lawsuit that filed a “single” charge against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of the victims of the 2018 Danforth firefight in Toronto has been given the green light to move to the next stage by the Ontario Supreme Court.

Published this week by Judge Paul Perell, the decision means the $ 150 million lawsuit filed in 2019 is one step closer to certification of class action, overcoming an “important and difficult hurdle” that could have seen the lawsuit thrown out. court, according to lawyer Malcolm Rubin.

In a 27-page written decision, Perell is on the side of a representative group of victims of the July 22, 2018 attack – including Samantha Price, who was shot in the hip – by supporting the right of an innocent victim of armed violence to judge the gun manufacturer.

“There are safer ways to make weapons that prevent them from being used by unauthorized people, such as the Danforth shooter,” said Ruby, who represents victims and families.

Ruby described the case as making a “unique” accusation stemming from what has become an “unfortunately too common event.”

Massachusetts attorneys have argued that the manufacturer does not take civil liability for the Danforth shooting and called for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

A Smith & Wesson spokesman could not be reached for comment Friday. The gun manufacturer’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Faisal Hussain pistol killed 18-year-old Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis, injuring 13 others when it opened fire on a crowded part of Danforth Boulevard in Greektown in a warm summer night. He then fatally shot himself after exchanging gunfire with Toronto police.

He was armed with a 40-caliber semi-automatic weapon, Smith & Wesson, a weapon that was reportedly stolen in 2016 after it was legally purchased by a Saskatchewan gun store.

In their lawsuit, six plaintiffs, including Price’s parents, Ken Smith and Claire Smith, allege that Smith & Wesson Corp. was negligent in the design and manufacture of its 40 M&P (Military and Police) series, failing to install the “smart gun technology” that allows the gun. shoot only when used by an authorized owner.

“A manufacturer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to reduce any risk to life and limbs that may be inherent in its design,” Perell wrote.

The judge said it was arguable that a time had come “when Smith & Wesson was careful not to use invented licensed user technology, of which there were many types, some of which were invented and patented by Smith & Wesson,” the judge wrote. .

Price said he was pleased to see the court agree that Smith & Wesson “should be held liable” for the absence of safety features on a lethal product.

“Our goal is to hold Smith & Wesson responsible for the tragedy that has befallen our families and to help avoid similar tragedies for other families in the future,” Price said.

Ruby congratulated her clients on their dedication to preventing gun violence from affecting other families.

“They have the courage to approach this case, which is not an easy case,” he said.

Ruby expects the collective action certification phase to begin in the coming months.

Wendy Gillis is a Toronto reporter who covers crime and police for Star. Contact her by email at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter: @wendygillis