Ralph Winkler: Fill & Download for Free

"Although this public nuisance lawsuit is brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the State of New York - while the Hamilton action was one initiated by private parties for negligent marketing - both were brought against handgun manufacturers and sellers. Plaintiffs attempt here to widen the range of common-law public nuisance claims in order to reach the legal handgun industry will not itself, if successful, engender a limitless number of public nuisance lawsuits by individuals against these particular defendants, as was a stated concern in Hamilton (96 NY2d at 233). However, giving a green light to a common-law public nuisance cause of action today will, in our judgment, likely open the courthouse doors to a flood of limitless, similar theories of public nuisance, not only against these defendants, but also against a wide and varied array of other commercial and manufacturing enterprises and activities."All a creative mind would need to do is construct a scenario describing a known or perceived harm of a sort that can somehow be said to relate back to the way a company or an industry makes, markets and/or sells its non-defective, lawful product or service, and a public nuisance claim would be conceived and a lawsuit born. A variety of such lawsuits would leave the starting gate to be welcomed into the legal arena to run their cumbersome course, their vast cost and tenuous reasoning notwithstanding. Indeed, such lawsuits employed to address a host of societal problems would be invited into the courthouse whether the problems they target are real or perceived; whether the problems are in some way caused by, or perhaps merely preceded by, the defendants completely lawful business practices; regardless of the remoteness of their actual cause or of their foreseeability; and regardless of the existence, remoteness, nature and extent of any intervening causes between defendants lawful commercial conduct and the alleged harm." - from the appeals court decision upholding the dismissal of New York v. Sturm Ruger et. al.--"Knives are sharp, bowling balls are heavy, bullets cause puncture wounds in flesh. The law has long recognized that obvious dangers are an excluded class. Were we to decide otherwise, we would open a Pandora's box.""The city could sue the manufacturers of matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents, or breweries for drunken driving. Guns are dangerous. When someone pulls the trigger, whether intentionally or by accident, a properly functioning gun is going to discharge, and someone may be killed. The risks of guns are open and obvious."We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the city's complaint. The city's claims are too remote and seek derivatively what should be claimed only by citizens directly injured by firearms. The city cannot recover municipal costs. We overrule its assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court." - Judge Ralph Winkler, Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals in the decision upholding dismissal of Cincinnati's lawsuit.I don’t think such a law would survive judicial review.

When they couldn't win in the legislatures, the gun elimination organizations tried the courtrooms. They convinced city, county and state governments to sue manufacturers under the idea that just by making guns, they were responsible for crimes committed with guns. Here are just a few excerpts from court decisions in these suits:In the view of this Court, the City’s complaint is an improper attempt to have this Court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, which this Court is neither inclined nor empowered to do.In substance, the City and its Mayor opt to engage in efforts at arbitrary social reform by invoking the process of the Judicial Branch of Government, where apparently the City perceives, but fails to allege, irreversible failures in the appropriate Legislative Branch(s) of Government….The City should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to overlay or supplement existing civil and criminal ‘gun’ statutes and processes (either state and federal) by means of a series of judicial fiats which, when taken together, would only create a body of 'judge made gun laws'. – Special Judge James J. Richards, Lake Superior Court, County of Lake, City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, Cause No. 45D05-005-CT-243, slip op. 7 (Ind. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2001).--The County's request that the trial court use its injunctive powers to mandate redesign of firearms and declare that the appellees' business methods create a public nuisance, is an attempt to regulate firearms and ammunition through the medium of the judiciary…. The County's frustration cannot be alleviated through litigation as the judiciary is not empowered to 'enact' regulatory measures in the guise of injunctive relief. The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch of government but to the legislative branch. – Judge J.J. Fletcher, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc., 778 So.2d 1042, 1045--Although this public nuisance lawsuit is brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the State of New York - while the Hamilton action was one initiated by private parties for negligent marketing - both were brought against handgun manufacturers and sellers. Plaintiffs attempt here to widen the range of common-law public nuisance claims in order to reach the legal handgun industry will not itself, if successful, engender a limitless number of public nuisance lawsuits by individuals against these particular defendants, as was a stated concern in Hamilton (96 NY2d at 233). However, giving a green light to a common-law public nuisance cause of action today will, in our judgment, likely open the courthouse doors to a flood of limitless, similar theories of public nuisance, not only against these defendants, but also against a wide and varied array of other commercial and manufacturing enterprises and activities.All a creative mind would need to do is construct a scenario describing a known or perceived harm of a sort that can somehow be said to relate back to the way a company or an industry makes, markets and/or sells its non-defective, lawful product or service, and a public nuisance claim would be conceived and a lawsuit born. A variety of such lawsuits would leave the starting gate to be welcomed into the legal arena to run their cumbersome course, their vast cost and tenuous reasoning notwithstanding. Indeed, such lawsuits employed to address a host of societal problems would be invited into the courthouse whether the problems they target are real or perceived; whether the problems are in some way caused by, or perhaps merely preceded by, the defendants completely lawful business practices; regardless of the remoteness of their actual cause or of their foreseeability; and regardless of the existence, remoteness, nature and extent of any intervening causes between defendants lawful commercial conduct and the alleged harm. - from the appeals court decision upholding the dismissal of New York v. Sturm Ruger et. al.--Knives are sharp, bowling balls are heavy, bullets cause puncture wounds in flesh. The law has long recognized that obvious dangers are an excluded class. Were we to decide otherwise, we would open a Pandora's box.The city could sue the manufacturers of matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents, or breweries for drunken driving. Guns are dangerous. When someone pulls the trigger, whether intentionally or by accident, a properly functioning gun is going to discharge, and someone may be killed. The risks of guns are open and obvious.We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the city's complaint. The city's claims are too remote and seek derivatively what should be claimed only by citizens directly injured by firearms. The city cannot recover municipal costs. We overrule its assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. - Judge Ralph Winkler, Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals in the decision upholding dismissal of Cincinnati's lawsuit.That last one is my favorite.The purpose of these suits was not (necessarily) to win, it was to make firearms manufacturers bleed economically, defending themselves against the bottomless pockets of government plaintiffs. Of course, winning even one case would have made them bleed even more.The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act did not exempt gun manufacturers from "product liability lawsuits." It exempted them from "qualified civil liability actions" in state or federal courts because:(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.Someone once said, "gun control cannot survive without an accompanying sea of disinformation." They were right.How do YOU like being lied to?

I do know from a personal experience years ago that Nicholas Cage is capable of acting like a real jerk. We were at a major movie/theater convention with a ton of A-list actors and directors there. He refused to help promote his new film because he felt that he was a major star and did not want people “gawking “ at him. My my, how fortunes change. Although Richard Dawson could be quite demanding at times, he hosted “The World Championship of Trvia” on ABC’s “Wide World of Entertainment”, which was taped at the University of Colorado in Boulder. I was the Head Judge and question writer. After the taping finished, he went around and personally thanked each member of the crew. I also know from firsthand experience that producer-director Stanley Kramer, Slim Pickens, Gale Storm, Eddie Bracken, character actor Jessie White, Freddy Canon, Del Shannon, Pinky Lee (early children’s TV star), Buster Crabbe, Steve Gutenberg, and Pat Boone were extremely nice and very accommodating. When I was writing a newspaper column, I received personal, handwritten letters from Lloyd Bridges (one of the nicest celebrities ever), Barbara Billingsley, Neil simon, and Buffalo Bob Smith. I do not know this from experience, but I have read (take that for what it’s worth) that Jennifer Lopez and Kevin James supposedly won’t allow some people to directly address them. Others with reputedly rude reputations are Ben Stiller, Cameron Diaz, Christian Bale, Chevy Chase, Billy Crystal, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Willis, Russell Crow (who once threw a phone at a concierge), Gweneth Paltrow, Jerry Seinfeld, Gene Simmons, Meryl Streep, Rachel Ray, Michael Jordan, Justin Bieber (who spit on his fans from a balcony), Ariana Grande (who said, “I hate Americans. I hate America”), Ellen DeGeneres, Patrick Stewart, and William Shatner. All have horrible reputations for mistreatment of their fans. Not that this makes him a bad person, but I once heard George Lucas quietly tell a large group of fans who were outside a theater to see one of the Star Wars films to “Get a life.” (This, and everything else you hear or read should be taken with a grain of salt, to be sure). With Bill Murray, it could go either way. He has no problem turning down requests for autographs and then mimicking the response of those asking for his signature. By the same token, I do know that when he has attended functions at Regis University in Denver, he was very accommodating in posing for pictures when seen at some of the restaurants in town. It is interesting that some famous people hate being recognized, and go out of their way to avoid recognition. Others enjoy being recognized and enjoy interacting with their fans. Still others resent it when they aren’t recognized. As mothers and fathers, many do appreciate it when fans respect their privacy, especially when they are with their children and photos are being taken. Their reticence in cases like this stem from concerns with security. When it comes down to it, famous people are human, something we tend to forget. Each one of us experiences changes in mood. On any given day, desire to appreciate and accommodate their fans clearly is affected by this. I never have understood why people like this demean, insult, and dismiss their loyal fans. Of course they have a right to their privacy, but they knew full well the advantages and disadvantages of fame. By the same token, I do know from personal experience that Clint Eastwood, and Kevin Costner are nice. Michael Caine, Sir Anthony Hopkins, the late Don Knotts, Henry Winkler and Hugh Jackman are known to be true gentlemen. Johnny Depp was extremely accommodating and appreciative when I saw him. He was paying special attention to those who were helping at an event. He would approach them, shake their hands and say, “Hi, I’m John.” I was at a Wayne Newton concert years ago. At the end of his show, a woman from the audience handed him a bouquet of flowers which he graciously accepted. He placed them on a stool that he had used during his show in order to sing one last song or deliver some parting comments to the audience. He then left the stage. A few seconds later, he came back on stage to retrieve the flowers that he had left on the stool. What a class act! Paul Newman was down to earth, but decided to quit signing autographs after being approached at a urinal. (Others may have had different experiences with these celebrities). I have heard that Burt Reynolds used to miss flights because he was busy signing autographs. The late Betty Davis was extremely appreciative of her fans and was happy to sign autographs. Although Harrison Ford supposedly doesn’t like being recognized solely for his celebrity, he once was surrounded by a group of autograph seekers. People started shoving each other and the situation started to become dangerous. As I recall he was backed up against a fence. He firmly cautioned the crowd to settle down. Many other stars would have just walked away. Keanu Reeves frequently uses public transportation, is cordial, and very generous. He gave away millions to the crew of the Matrix movies, a magnanimous gesture as proof of his gratitude and appreciation for their artistry. He will go out of his way to accommodate his fans whom he holds in high regard. The affable Tom Hanks seems to be on everybody’s list of good guys.Addendum:My friend’s wife and I both worked for the same major Hollywood studio. One day her son was with her, so she gave him a dollar to go purchase candy from the vending machine. Her son returned with an armful of candy, and she asked him how he could possibly buy so much candy for only a dollar. He responded, “The Man in the movies gave it to me.“ A year later, my friend and her family were at the theater in Big Bear watching the pre-show trivia slides (remember those?). All of a sudden her son yelled, “That’s him! That’s the man who bought me the candy.” It was Clint Eastwood.