Judge says Danforth mass shooting victims have the right to sue shipowner Smith & Wesson

A lawsuit that makes a “unique” allegation against gun maker Smith & Wesson on behalf of the victims of the deadly Danforth shooting in 2018 in Toronto was given the green light to advance to the next stage by the Ontario Superior Court.

Released this week by Judge Paul Perell, the decision means that the $ 150 million lawsuit opened in 2019 is a step closer to class action certification, overcoming “an important and difficult obstacle” that could have seen the case removed from court. , according to lawyer Malcolm Rubi.

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

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

Ruby described the case as a “single” claim derived from what has become an “unfortunately very common occurrence”.

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

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

Gunfighter 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 shots with the Toronto police.

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

In their lawsuit, six claimants, including Price’s parents, Ken Smith and Claire Smith, allege that Smith & Wesson Corp. was negligent in the design and manufacture of its 40 M&P (Military and Police) series by failing to install “smart weapon technology” that allows the weapon 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 physical integrity that may be inherent in his design,” wrote Perell.

The judge said it is possible that there was a time “when Smith & Wesson was careless 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 “must answer” for the lack of security features in a lethal product.

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

Ruby praised her clients for their dedication to preventing armed violence from reaching 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 reporter based in Toronto, covering crime and policing for the Star. Contact her at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter: @wendygillis