## Facts

- Plaintiffs were relatives of six people killed by handgun shootings and one surviving victim who was shot; they sought wrongful death and personal injury damages.
- Defendants were twenty-five handgun manufacturers.
- Plaintiffs did not claim the handguns were defectively designed or manufactured; they alleged negligent marketing and distribution.
- Plaintiffs contended defendants’ distribution practices foreseeably facilitated diversion of handguns to criminals and minors, contributing to an illegal secondary market.
- Alleged failures included inadequate oversight of distributors and dealers, tolerating indicators of straw purchasing and crime-gun diversion, and continuing supply relationships despite disproportionate crime-gun traces.
- After a four-week jury trial, the jury found fifteen manufacturers negligent; nine were found to have proximately caused injury to at least one plaintiff.
- The jury awarded damages only for the claims arising from the shooting of Stephen Fox (and a related claim by his mother), allocating liability among American Arms, Beretta U.S.A. Corp., and Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc.
- Post-verdict, defendants sought judgment as a matter of law and a new trial and asserted collateral estoppel based on prior firearms litigation; plaintiffs sought to conform pleadings and judgment to a market share theory.

## Issues

1. Whether, under New York negligence law, handgun manufacturers owe a duty to use reasonable care in marketing and distributing non-defective handguns to reduce foreseeable diversion into illegal markets.
2. Whether evidence supported a jury finding that defendants’ negligent marketing and distribution was a proximate cause of injuries inflicted by third-party criminals, including Stephen Fox’s injuries.
3. Whether market share liability could be used to allocate responsibility among manufacturers when product identification is difficult in shootings involving functionally similar handguns.
4. Whether plaintiffs’ claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on prior firearms litigation.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial under the post-trial record.

## Decision

- The court recognized a duty of reasonable care for handgun manufacturers in marketing and distribution, given the foreseeable risk of diversion and criminal misuse and manufacturers’ ability to influence distribution channels.
- The court denied defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial as to the Fox verdict, concluding the evidence permitted a rational finding of negligence and proximate cause.
- The court entered judgment for Stephen Fox and his mother against American Arms, Beretta U.S.A., and Taurus in accordance with the jury’s allocation and damages findings.
- The court rejected defendants’ collateral estoppel defense because the prior matters did not satisfy New York’s identity-of-issue and full-and-fair-opportunity requirements.
- The court approved use of a market share liability framework, in appropriate circumstances, to apportion liability among manufacturers by market share when product identification barriers would otherwise defeat recovery despite proof of negligent distribution contributing to an illegal market.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York negligence law, duty may be found where harm is foreseeable and the defendant can take reasonable steps to reduce the risk, even when immediate injury is inflicted by third-party criminals.
- Manufacturers of inherently dangerous products may be required to exercise reasonable care not only in manufacture but also in marketing and distribution when distribution choices materially affect diversion risk.
- Proximate cause is generally a jury question; a verdict may stand where evidence supports an inference that negligent distribution was a substantial factor in creating illegal availability that contributed to the injury.
- Market share liability can be used to allocate damages among producers of functionally similar products when individualized identification is not feasible and apportionment by market participation is supported by proof and practicable metrics.
- Collateral estoppel requires identical issues actually litigated and a full and fair opportunity to litigate; differences in parties, issues, or evidentiary predicates defeat preclusion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a negligence-based judgment arising from a handgun shooting, holding that manufacturers can owe a duty to use reasonable care in handgun marketing and distribution to limit foreseeable diversion to illegal markets, finding sufficient evidence of proximate cause for the Fox claims, rejecting collateral estoppel, and permitting market share allocation where product identification obstacles would otherwise bar recovery.


Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)