Judge says victims of Danforth mass shootings have the right to sue gunmaker Smith & Wesson

A lawsuit with a “unique” charge against weapons manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of the victims of Toronto’s 2018 fatal shooting in Danforth has been green-lighted to advance to the next stage by Ontario’s Superior Court.

The decision, released this week by Judge Paul Perell, means the $ 150 million lawsuit filed in 2019 is a step closer to class action certification, overcoming “a significant and difficult hurdle” that the lawsuit from the court, according to lawyer Malcolm Robijn.

In a 27-page written decision, Perell sides with a representative group of victims of the July 22, 2018 attack – including Samantha Price, who was shot in the hip – by upholding the right of an innocent gun violence victim to protect the manufacturer of the gun. rifle.

“There are safer ways to make weapons that prevent unauthorized use, such as the Danforth gunman,” said Ruby, representing the victims and families.

Ruby described the case as a “unique” claim that arose out of what has become an “unfortunately all too common occurrence.”

Lawyers for the Massachusetts-based company had argued that the manufacturer had no civil liability for the Danforth shooting, asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

A spokesman for Smith & Wesson was not available for comment on Friday. Lawyers for the arms manufacturer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gunman Faisal Hussain killed Reese Fallon, 18, and Julianna Kozis, 10, and injured 13 others when he opened fire on a busy stretch of Danforth Avenue in Greektown on a hot summer night. He then shot himself after exchanging gunfire with the Toronto police.

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

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

“A manufacturer has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate any risk to life and limb inherent in its design,” Perell wrote.

The judge said it is likely that a time came “when it was careless for Smith & Wesson not to use the invented authorized user technology, of which there were many types, some of which Smith & Wesson invented and patented,” wrote. the judge.

Price said he is pleased to see the court agree that Smith & Wesson should be “forced to answer” for the lack of safety features on a deadly product.

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

Ruby praised his clients for their dedication to preventing gun violence from affecting other families.

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

Ruby expects the class action certification phase to start in the coming months.

Wendy Gillis is a Toronto-based reporter who writes crime and police for the Star. Reach her by email at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter: @wendygillis