Gustafson v. Springfield Armory
A gun manufacturer made and sold guns that failed to include several feasible safety features on a handgun which would prevent children and others from misusing it. As a result, a 13-year-old boy was killed in an unintentional shooting by another child. Brady sued the manufacturer of the gun, Springfield Armory, and the dealer, for product liability, alleging that the gun was defective for failing to include reasonable, life-saving safety features.
Springfield Armory made and Saloom sold a firearm without several obvious safety features that resulted in the unintentional shooting death of J.R. Gustafson.
On March 20, 2016 in Mount Pleasant, a town outside of Pittsburgh, 13-year-old J.R. Gustafson was killed in an unintentional shooting by a boy who believed the gun was unloaded when the magazine was removed.
This tragedy of J.R. Gustafson’s death could have been prevented had the manufacturer included common practice safety features to the firearm, including a magazine disconnect safety feature, invented over 100 years ago to prevent precisely this type of tragedy, that disables a gun when the magazine is removed.
On behalf of J.R Gustafson’s parents, Brady, along with Pittsburgh firm Carlson Lynch, filed a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer and the local gun store, alleging that J.R. Gustafson’s death could have been prevented had the gun included feasible safety features on the firearm. The lawsuit seeks to hold the manufacturer and the local gun store accountable for negligently selling a defective firearm that failed to include several feasible safety features that could have prevented the shooting, including a magazine disconnect, or an internal lock or loaded chamber indicator.
On January 15, 2019, a trial judge in Westmoreland County ruled that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides the gun companies with immunity, and dismissed the suit. We have appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.