HAMILTON V. ACCU-TEK 62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (1999) CASE BRIEF

HAMILTON V. ACCU-TEK

62 F. Supp. 2d 802 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: After the jury returned a verdict for Hamilton (P), Accu (D) moved for entry of judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and P moved to amend his pleadings to conform to the proofs presented at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b).

FACTS: All the plaintiffs have one thing in common; they were shot with handguns and severely injured or killed. Ps sued numerous handgun manufacturers on a negligent market theory. Ps claim that Ds marketed and distributed handguns negligently, proximately causing each of the seven shootings at issue. Ds contend that the sole proximate cause of the murders and shootings in these cases was criminal conduct on the part of the shooters and others. With respect to Stephen Fox (P) and Gail Fox (P), the jury calculated total damages of $3,950,000 and $ 50,000 respectively, to be assessed against the three defendants found liable in the percentages indicated above --American Arms, Inc. (.23%), Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (6.03%), and Taurus international Manufacturing, Inc. (6.8%). At the close of Ps' case, Ds moved, pursuant to Rule 50(a), for judgment as a matter of law. Decision was reserved, and the motion was renewed post-verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b). Ds argue that (1) they owed Ps no legal duty; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's findings of negligence and proximate cause; (3) market share liability does not apply; and (4) plaintiffs' proof with respect to market share was inadequate to support the jury charge and verdict.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner