High School

We appreciate your visit to Gian Luigi Fern entered the offices of a law firm against which he had a grudge Using two semiautomatic assault weapons TEC 9 and TEC. This page offers clear insights and highlights the essential aspects of the topic. Our goal is to provide a helpful and engaging learning experience. Explore the content and find the answers you need!

Gian Luigi Fern entered the offices of a law firm against which he had a grudge. Using two semiautomatic assault weapons (TEC 9 and TEC-DC9) made and distributed by Navegar, Inc., he killed eight persons and wounded six others before killing himself. The survivors and the families of some of those who had died filed a suit in a California state court against Navegar, based in part on negligence. They claimed that Navegar had a duty not to create risks to the public beyond those inherent in the lawful use of firearms. They offered evidence that Navegar knew or should have known that the assault guns had "no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose" and that the guns were "particularly well adapted to military-style assault on large numbers of people." They also claimed that the TEC-DC9 advertising "targets a criminal clientele," further increasing the risk of harm.

1. Was Navegar negligent in marketing the TEC-DC9? Why or why not?

2. Who should make policy decisions regarding the liability of gun manufacturers: the courts, or Congress and state legislatures?

Answer :

The plaintiffs argue that Navegar was negligent in marketing the TEC-DC9 assault guns, claiming that the company should have known about the risks associated with these firearms.

Which were deemed to have no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose and were well-suited for military-style assaults.

The determination of whether Navegar was negligent in marketing the TEC-DC9 would depend on various factors and legal considerations. Negligence typically requires proving that a duty of care was owed, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach resulted in harm or injury. In this case, the plaintiffs argue that Navegar had a duty not to create unnecessary risks beyond the lawful use of firearms and that the marketing of the TEC-DC9 targeted a criminal clientele, increasing the risk of harm.

The question of who should make policy decisions regarding the liability of gun manufacturers is a complex and contentious issue. It involves considerations of public safety, constitutional rights, and the balance of power between the branches of government. Ultimately, the decision-making authority may vary depending on the jurisdiction and legal framework. In the United States, the responsibility for shaping liability standards and regulations for gun manufacturers is often shared between the courts, Congress, and state legislatures. The courts interpret and apply existing laws, while Congress and state legislatures have the power to enact or modify legislation related to gun liability. The specific roles and responsibilities of each institution in this regard can vary, and debates on this topic often involve discussions about public policy, legal precedent, and constitutional interpretation.

To learn more about marketing visit:

brainly.com/question/25754149

#SPJ11

Thanks for taking the time to read Gian Luigi Fern entered the offices of a law firm against which he had a grudge Using two semiautomatic assault weapons TEC 9 and TEC. We hope the insights shared have been valuable and enhanced your understanding of the topic. Don�t hesitate to browse our website for more informative and engaging content!

Rewritten by : Barada