## Facts

- Administrators of estates of nine Sandy Hook shooting victims sued firearm manufacturer, distributor, and retailer connected to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used in the shooting.
- The rifle was legally purchased by Nancy Lanza from a retailer; Adam Lanza later used it to kill and injure victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
- Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence, including a theory that defendants negligently “entrusted” a military-style rifle to the civilian market.
- Plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), claiming defendants marketed the rifle by emphasizing militaristic, offensive combat uses and promoted it for illegal assaultive purposes.
- Defendants moved to strike, asserting federal immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and multiple state-law barriers (standing, limitations, and product-liability preemption).
- The trial court struck all counts; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut law recognizes negligence or negligent entrustment claims premised on selling a legal semiautomatic rifle to the general civilian market.
2. Whether wrongful-death plaintiffs lacking a direct consumer or commercial relationship have standing under CUTPA and may seek personal-injury/wrongful-death damages under CUTPA.
3. Whether the CUTPA wrongful-marketing claims were time-barred or displaced by the Connecticut Product Liability Act.
4. Whether PLCAA bars the CUTPA wrongful-marketing claims, or whether they fall within PLCAA’s predicate exception for knowing violations of statutes applicable to firearm sale or marketing.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the negligence-based theories that sought to impose liability merely for selling legal semiautomatic rifles to civilians.
- The court held plaintiffs had standing under CUTPA despite no direct consumer relationship with defendants.
- The court held CUTPA can allow recovery of losses tied to personal injury and wrongful death when caused by an unfair trade practice.
- The court held the CUTPA wrongful-marketing claims were not time-barred and were not preempted by the Connecticut Product Liability Act because they targeted marketing conduct rather than a product defect theory.
- The court held PLCAA did not bar the CUTPA wrongful-marketing claims because they plausibly alleged a knowing violation of a state statute applicable to firearm marketing, fitting PLCAA’s predicate exception.
- The court reversed the judgment striking the CUTPA wrongful-marketing counts and remanded for further proceedings limited to those claims.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut negligent entrustment generally requires supplying a dangerous instrument to a person the supplier knows or should know is likely to misuse it; it does not extend to imposing liability solely for selling legal firearms to the general civilian market.
- General foreseeability that a lawful product may be used criminally is insufficient, without more, to establish negligence liability under Connecticut law in this context.
- CUTPA standing is not limited to consumers or parties in a direct commercial relationship; the statute authorizes suit by any person suffering an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice.
- CUTPA may permit recovery for personal-injury-related losses, including wrongful-death damages, if causally linked to an unfair trade practice.
- The Connecticut Product Liability Act does not necessarily displace CUTPA claims when the gravamen is wrongful marketing rather than a defective-product theory.
- PLCAA generally bars civil actions based on third-party criminal misuse of firearms, but its predicate exception permits actions alleging a knowing violation of a state or federal statute applicable to firearm sale or marketing that proximately caused the harm; generally applicable unfair trade practice statutes may qualify when applied to firearm marketing conduct.

## Conclusion

The court rejected attempts to impose negligence liability on the firearms industry based merely on lawful civilian sales, but allowed the wrongful-death plaintiffs to proceed on CUTPA claims alleging knowing, unethical marketing of the rifle for offensive combat use, holding those claims fit within PLCAA’s predicate exception and were otherwise viable under state law.


Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019)