The firearms manufacturers cannot be sued for the criminal use of their product.
Branford is an attorney here and he's been pretty good at explaining why he thinks this lawsuit will die in the Appellate or Federal Courts.

The complaint reads like a press release, but that is not uncommon when the message is more political than legal, and the intent is for a sympathetic press to quote it generously.

I've explained my objections to the lawsuit in a few threads not too long ago, but the plaintiffs are trying to circumvent the PLCAA and Second Amendment to effectively ban of all semiautomatic rifles or those with a military pedigree (and "large capacity" magazines) with a negligent entrustment theory that is a Hail Mary claim, at best. To accept plaintiffs theory would be akin to holding the car manufacturer and dealer liable if Lanza had stolen his mother's car and run over the children.

I don't know how an elected state judge will rule on the immunity issue, but state appellate and federal courts will likely ultimately decide the issue. However, even if plaintiffs lose, which I believe they expect, they'll portray themselves as martyrs for the gun control cause and use it to raise money.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014964351

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/lawsuit-filed-against-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers-over-sandy-hook-murders/

to CT law, will it not be likely that the defendants will ask for summary dismissal?

After all CT defined the properties of what makes an "assault weapon" legal for use in a civilian's hands. Bushmaster met those requirements. In my mind, that would negate the claim, even if true, about its original design as it was modified from that original design, according to the law.

To rule otherwise seems to me to be illogical. A law sets the parameters of what a legal product is yet a product that meets those parameters, and operates without mechanical or manufacturing flaw can still be sued for wrongful death.

With that precedent could not every car manufacturer be also sued for accident deaths even if seat belts were used and the airbag deployed?

based on immunity under the PLCAA and other theories. It would be a fool's errand to predict how a local state court with sympathetic plaintiffs will rule on the motion, and that is why I believe the case will be resolved in the appellate courts.

I also agree with your point about the importance of the fact that the gun was compliant under CT law. Professor Volokh explains the issue quite well in the link I provided.

Kudos to Branford.

purse that the 3 year old opened and shot his mother will get successfully sued.

Still if I was on a jury and saw photos of a dead children and the Bushmaster advertisement, "Consider your man card reissued" it would be tough not to vote against them.

and Congress passed the PLCAA.

Military rifles are specifically designed to be full auto or select fire.
AR-15s are specifically designed to not be full auto or select fire.

under the strict Connecticut AWB and was legally sold after all of the required background checks to a non-prohibited person. I do not see how they can get past the law and sue a manufacturer for a criminal use of a legally sold item. Maybe they should sue the state for allowing that firearm to be sold, they set the standards that this weapon passed.

Thanks!