Judge says victims of mass shootings in Danforth have a right to sue arms manufacturer Smith & Wesson

A lawsuit filing a “single” complaint against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of the victims of Toronto’s deadly Danforth shooting in 2018 has been given the green light to move to the next stage by the Ontario Superior Court.

Published this week by Judge Paul Perell, the decision means the $ 150 million lawsuit filed in 2019 is a step closer to certification of class action, overcoming “a major and difficult hurdle” that could have seen the lawsuit filed in court, according to attorney Malcolm Rubí.

In a 27-page written decision, Perell positions himself with a representative group of victims of the July 22, 2018 attack, including Samantha Price, who was shot in the hip, defending the right of an innocent victim of violence of gun to sue the gun manufacturer.

“There are safer ways to make weapons that prevent them from being used by unauthorized people, like the Danforth shooter,” said Ruby, who represents victims and families.

Ruby described the case as a “single” statement derived from what has become “unfortunately too common.”

Lawyers for the Massachusetts-based company had argued that the manufacturer assumed no civil liability for the Danforth shooting and called for legal action to be dismissed.

A Smith & Wesson spokesman could not be reached for comment Friday. The gun manufacturer’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gunman Faisal Hussain killed 18-year-old Reese Fallon and ten-year-old Julianna Kozis and injured 13 others when he opened fire on a busy stretch of Danforth Avenue in Greektown on a warm summer night. He was then fatally shot after exchanging gunfire with Toronto police.

He was armed with a Smith & Wesson 40-caliber semi-automatic pistol, a weapon that was stolen in 2016 after it was legally acquired by a Saskatchewan gun store.

In their lawsuit, six plaintiffs, including Price’s parents, Ken Smith and Claire Smith, allege that Smith & Wesson Corp. he was negligent in the design and manufacture of his M&P (Military and Police) 40 series for not installing the “smart gun technology” that the weapon allows. to fire only when used by an authorized owner.

“A manufacturer has a duty to make reasonable efforts to reduce any risk to life and limbs that may be inherent in its design,” Perell wrote.

The judge said it could be argued that there came a time “when Smith & Wesson ignored not using the technology of invented authorized users, of whom there were many types, some of whom Smith & Wesson invented and patent, ”the judge wrote.

Price said he is pleased to see the court agree that Smith and Wesson “should be held accountable” for the lack of safety features in a lethal product.

“Our goal is to hold Smith & Wesson responsible for the tragedy that affected our families and help prevent similar tragedies for other families in the future,” Price said.

Ruby congratulated her clients on their dedication to preventing gun violence from affecting other families.

“They have the courage to take on this case, which is not easy,” he said.

Ruby expects the collective action certification phase to begin in the coming months.

Wendy Gillis is a Toronto-based journalist who covers the star’s crime and police. Email her at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter: @wendygillis