## Facts

- Two students carried out a mass shooting at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, killing multiple people, including teacher William David Sanders, and injuring others.
- The decedent’s widow and stepchildren sued numerous producers and distributors of video games and a film, alleging the shooters consumed violent games and other explicit media.
- Plaintiffs alleged violent video games made violence attractive, failed to depict consequences, and “trained” the shooters in aiming and firing weapons.
- Plaintiffs alleged the shooters watched *The Basketball Diaries* shortly before the attack and that a school-shooting scene influenced the events.
- Plaintiffs asserted Colorado wrongful-death-based claims sounding in negligence and strict products liability, alleging the deaths would not have occurred “but for” defendants’ media content.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in a diversity action governed by Colorado tort law.

## Issues

1. Whether Colorado negligence law imposed a duty on producers and distributors of violent or explicit expressive media to protect third parties from a consumer’s later intentional criminal violence.
2. Whether the alleged link between violent media content and the Columbine shootings plausibly established proximate cause, or whether the shooters’ intentional acts were a superseding cause as a matter of law.
3. Whether the intangible expressive content of video games and a film qualifies as a “product” for Colorado strict products liability.
4. Whether policy considerations, including First Amendment concerns, counseled against extending tort liability for harms allegedly resulting from protected expressive content.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held defendants owed no legal duty to plaintiffs under Colorado negligence principles for the shooters’ third-party criminal acts.
- The court held proximate cause was not plausibly alleged because the shooters’ intentional, premeditated conduct constituted a superseding cause breaking any causal chain from defendants’ media to the injuries.
- The court held strict products liability failed because plaintiffs targeted the expressive content, which is not a “product” under Colorado products-liability doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Under Colorado law, duty is a policy determination that considers foreseeability, likelihood of injury, the burden on defendants, and societal consequences of imposing the duty.
- Absent special circumstances or relationships, defendants generally have no duty to protect others from unforeseeable intentional criminal acts of third parties.
- An intentional, premeditated criminal act may operate as a superseding cause that severs proximate causation when the asserted causal connection is remote and attenuated.
- “But for” allegations, without a sufficiently direct nexus, do not establish proximate cause for imposing tort liability on remote actors.
- For strict products liability, Colorado law does not treat intangible expressive content (ideas, images, storylines) as a “product” even if distributed through physical media.
- Policy concerns associated with imposing tort liability for protected expression may reinforce limits on duty and proximate cause.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed wrongful-death negligence and strict liability claims against video game and film defendants because Colorado law did not impose a duty to prevent third-party criminal violence allegedly inspired by media content, the shooters’ intentional acts were a superseding cause as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs’ strict liability theory improperly treated expressive content as a defective product.


Sanders v. Acclaim Ent., Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Colo. 2002)