Can the maker of a gun be held legally responsible for the criminal use of that gun? That is the question at the heart of a key gun control case currently being argued before the California Supreme Court.

The case, Merrill v. Navegar, has become what gun control advocates consider their best chance at establishing that gun manufacturers are, at least to some extent, legally liable for gun deaths and injuries in the United States.

History of the case: On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri entered a San Francisco law firm located at 101 California Street armed with two TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistols made by Navegar, Inc., and a Norinco Model 1911A1 .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Ferri, then used these three weapons to kill eight victims and himself.

Survivors and representatives of some of those who died, brought suit against Navegar on three theories of liability: common law negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

On May 6, 1997, a California trial court issued a summary judgment finding Navegar not liable under any of the three theories of liability.

The plaintiffs (Merrill) appealed the trial court's ruling to the California Court of Appeals. On Sept. 9, 1999, the appeals court overturned the trial court, finding Navegar legally responsible for the deaths. In its decision, the court wrote, "We conclude Navegar owed appellants a duty to exercise reasonable care not to create risks above and beyond those inherent in the presence of firearms in our society and that there are triable issues of fact as to whether it breached that duty."

Navegar then appealed to the California Supreme Court, where hearings began May 10, 2001.

In the Supreme Court's hour-long hearing, lawyers for the victims said that Navegar should be held liable for the deaths arguing that the TEC-DC9 pistol had few legal uses and was advertised in ways designed to appeal to criminals. "The real market for this gun was people who wanted to kill a lot of people very quickly," stated attorney for the victims Dennis Henigan.

Navegar's lawyers countered that the plaintiffs were trying to create a new crime of "negligent advertising," that would place questions of liability on the makers of other products from knives to cars.

Attorneys for Navegar also argued that the gun maker had broken no laws and should not be held responsible for the illegal acts committed by Mr. Ferri. 

Ferri, then a resident of Southern California, had illegally purchased the pistols in Nevada and illegally transported them back into California. "There is nothing that Navegar did that caused Mr. Ferri to do what he did,'' stated Navegar's attorney Ernest Getto. "What you had was a deranged killer who crossed state lines."

Next page > Important Details of the Case > Page 1, 2