Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC

Connecticut Supreme Court · 2019 · Torts

TortsWrongful DeathNegligent EntrustmentConsumer ProtectionFirearms LiabilityPreemptionPLCAApredicate exception

Facts

The defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold a Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle, which Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook shooting after his mother had purchased it from a Connecticut gun store in 2010. The plaintiffs alleged two main theories: that selling this assault-style rifle to civilians was itself negligent and unfair, and that the defendants wrongfully marketed the rifle to civilians by glorifying offensive military-style use. They further alleged that this marketing was a substantial factor in Lanza's choice of weapon and the lethality of the attack. The defendants argued that PLCAA barred the suit and that the state-law claims were otherwise legally insufficient.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs stated legally sufficient wrongful death claims based on negligent entrustment or CUTPA, and whether PLCAA barred those claims. More specifically, the court considered whether CUTPA claims based on wrongful firearms marketing could proceed under PLCAA's predicate exception.

Rule

Under Connecticut common law, negligent entrustment requires that the defendant know or have reason to know that the person directly entrusted with the dangerous instrumentality is likely to use it in an unsafe manner; the doctrine does not extend merely because a dangerous product sold to civilians might later reach some unknown unsafe user. Under CUTPA, any person who suffers an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice has standing without any business relationship requirement, and personal injuries directly caused by wrongful advertising are cognizable damages. A wrongful death claim predicated on CUTPA must satisfy both § 52-555 and CUTPA's three-year limitation period. For PLCAA, a state consumer protection statute such as CUTPA may qualify as a predicate statute when applied to claims that firearms sellers knowingly engaged in wrongful advertising or marketing of firearms for illegal purposes and that violation proximately caused the harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Marisol Vega lawfully bought a high-powered hunting rifle from Red Prairie Outfitters after passing all required checks. Two years later, her adult nephew took the rifle from her closet without permission and injured a neighbor. The neighbor sues the retailer for negligent entrustment, alleging only that rifles are dangerous and can predictably end up in the hands of irresponsible relatives.

Is the negligent entrustment claim against the retailer likely to survive?

Explanation. Negligent entrustment focuses on the direct entrustee. A seller must know or have reason to know that the person to whom it directly supplies the item is likely to use it unsafely or in a way involving unreasonable risk of physical harm. The doctrine does not extend merely because a dangerous product sold to a civilian might later reach some unknown unsafe user. This follows the majority's refusal to expand negligent entrustment on a generalized foreseeability theory. (Derived from Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC (n.d.).)