Judge says victims of mass shooting from Danforth have the right to sue gunsmith Smith & Wesson

A lawsuit that gave a ‘unique’ allegation against arms manufacturer Smith & Wesson on behalf of victims of the deadly Danforth shooting in Toronto in 2018 has been given the green light to proceed through the Superior Court in Ontario to the next phase .

The ruling, released this week by Justice Paul Perell, means the $ 150 million lawsuit filed in 2019 is a step closer to certifying group actions, and it surpasses an ‘important and difficult obstacle’ that according to attorney Malcolm could see the case from the court. Ruby.

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

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

Ruby describes the case as a ‘unique’ allegation stemming from an ‘unfortunately all too common occurrence’.

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

A Smith & Wesson spokesman could not be reached for comment Friday. The gun manufacturer’s attorneys 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 summer night on a busy stretch of Danforth Avenue in Greektown. He then fatally shot himself 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 being legally acquired by a Saskatchewan rifle shop.

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 its M&P (Military and Police) 40 series by failing to install ‘smart technology’ that allows the rifle. to fire only if used by an authorized owner.

“A manufacturer is obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce any life and limb matrices inherent in its design,” Perell wrote.

The judge said it was debatable that there came a time when “it was indifferent to Smith & Wesson not to use the technology of the advanced users, of which there were many types, some of which Smith and Wesson invented and patented. “the judge wrote.

Price said he was delighted to see the court agree that Smith & Wesson “should respond” due to the absence of safety features on a deadly product.

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

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

“They have the courage to tackle this issue, which is not an easy matter,” he said.

Ruby expects the certification phase for class actions to begin in the coming months.

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