May I refer you to PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET AL. The states' standing is established in the same way as it was in third-wave suits that prevailed for the States of Texas, Mississipi, et al, and resulted in the Tobacco MSA.
Quote: You've established a loss, to wit, money spent on gunshot wounds. You might have even alleged a basis for liability.
However, you have not extablished who was the proximate (that is, the direct, as opposed to indirect) cause of the less.
If someone is shot, isn't the loss caused by the person who pulled the trigger? Most people would think so.
The proximate cause is the shooter. The manufacturer is liable because the shooter's action were a forseable consequince of introducing the firearm into the stream of commerce. The manufacturer was negligent.
Quote: Furthermore, you still have to be able to demonstrate that the state has standing to sue the gun manufacturer. While it may be true that the state pays for medical in some gunshot cases, there is no evidence they do in all gunshot cases. In addition, there is the question of whether the state can, or should, be able to recoup a loss when it only suffered an ancillary loss that it would be required to compensate for in any medical situation.
See above.
Quote: If anything, the appeal to emotion is from "your" side of the camp: the whole concept of "there's been an injury so SOMEONE must be at fault" is much more an appeal to emotion than a sober application of existing law to the facts of the case.
My reasoning is quite sober. The basis of my argument is that the same law that prevailed in the states' succesful suits against tobacco apply here.
