Slain Postman’s Mother Can Sue Weapon Makers

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.

“The social value of manufacturing and distributing guns without taking basic steps to prevent these guns from reaching illegal purchasers and possessors cannot outweigh the public interest in keeping the guns out of the hands of illegal purchasers and possessors who in turn use them in crimes,” Paez wrote.

Friday’s ruling was hailed by gun-control groups and a lawyer for the city of San Francisco. That city is one of several in California, including Los Angeles, that have filed a separate major lawsuit against gun manufacturers, alleging similar theories of liability. Their claim is on appeal.

“I’m pleased and excited,” said Donna Finkelstein of Chatsworth, mother of Mindy Finkelstein, who was working as a counselor at the North Valley Jewish Community Center and was wounded in the leg by Furrow. Loren Lieb, mother of Joshua Stepakoff, who was 6 when Furrow shot him in the leg, also said she was pleased that the suit was moving forward.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the victims of this terrible crime, and a powerful rebuke to those who consider ‘frivolous’ efforts to hold the gun industry accountable for reckless actions,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, the nonprofit organization that played a key role in the filing of the suit. “When the actions of gun makers and distributors put public safety at risk, they must be held accountable.”

The ruling was criticized by attorneys for the gun manufacturers, who said they had not yet decided whether to ask for review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Christopher Renzulli, Glock’s New York attorney, said he was confident that the manufacturer ultimately would prevail. San Diego attorney Colin Murray, who represents China North Industries, expressed disappointment in Friday’s ruling and said he thought the dissenting opinions “more accurately reflect the state of the law in California.”

Furrow, a convicted felon with a history of mental instability, had an arsenal of assault-style weapons in his possession when he shot up the Jewish center in Granada Hills and later killed Ileto, who was delivering mail in Chatsworth.

Among the weapons were an Austrian-made Glock 9-millimeter handgun and a 9-millimeter rifle with an illegally shortened barrel made by China North Industries.

In March 2001, Furrow was sentenced to five life terms in prison after negotiating a plea agreement that spared him a possible death sentence for Ileto’s slaying.

So far, people who have tried to sue gun manufacturers for damages caused by gun crimes have not had much success, said UC Hastings Law School professor Marsha N. Cohen.

Friday’s ruling, like an earlier one by the Ohio Supreme Court that permitted a suit by the city of Cincinnati to move forward against the manufacturers on a similar theory, is significant, she said.

f the suit ultimately succeeds, she said, it could have an effect on the marketing practices of the manufacturers.

“There’s nothing like the loss of profits to focus your mind,” Cohen said.