|
2818 REVIEW GRANTED / DEFERRED Assault weapons that function as they were designed to function are not defective, and their manufacturer is not strictly liable for damage inflicted by persons using those weapons; the firefighter's rule prevents a police officer shot during a gun battle with bank robbers from successfully prosecuting a negligence claim against manufacturers of the weapons used by the robbers; a firearm is not an ultrahazardous product, so its manufacturer cannot be strictly liable for supplying an ultrahazardous product.CitationWHITFIELD v HECKLER & KOCH (Assault Weapons) 83 CA4 1200 [See: Merrill v Navegar (RevGrtd) 75 CA4 500, T/AT 11/99; Greenman v Yuba 59 C2 57; Barker v Lull 20 C3 413; CivC 1714.4; Kelhi v Fitzpatrick 25 CA4 1149, T/AT 7/94; Neighbarger v Irwin 8 C4 532, T/AT 11/94; Calatayud v State 18 C4 1057, T/AT 9/98; Green v General Petroleum 205 C 328, Luthringer v Moore 31 C2 489; Orser v George 252 CA2 660]
|
|
