This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Relatives of people killed by handguns (P) sued 49 handgun manufacturers (Ds) in Federal court alleging negligent marketing, design defect, ultra-hazardous activity, and fraud. Ds moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New dismissed the product liability and fraud causes of action but retained Ps' negligent marketing claim. Ps asserted that Ds distributed their products negligently so as to create and bolster an illegal, underground market in handguns, one that furnished weapons to minors and criminals involved in the shootings that precipitated this lawsuit. Ps were permitted to claim a market share theory of liability against all the manufacturers. The jury returned a special verdict finding 15 of the 25 Ds failed to use reasonable care in the distribution of their guns. The jury awarded damages against three Ds--American Arms, Beretta U.S.A., and Taurus International Manufacturing. Ds unsuccessfully moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50 (b). On appeal, the Second Circuit certified the following questions: (1) Whether Ds owed plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of the handguns they manufacture? Whether liability, in this case, may be apportioned on a market share basis, and if so, how?'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.