Litigation cannot solve a public health crisis. But litigation can be an effective complementary tool to regulation by increasing the salience of a public health issue, eliciting closely guarded information to move public opinion, and prompting legislative action. From tobacco to opioids, litigants have successfully turned to courts for monetary relief, to initiate systemic change, and to hold industry accountable

For years, litigators have been trying to push firearm suits into their own litigation moment. But litigation against the gun industry poses special challenges. Not only has the regulatory regime failed to prevent a public safety hazard, Congress has consistently underfunded and understaffed the relevant regulatory actors. And in 2005 it legislatively immunized the gun industry from suit with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

This paper surveys the field of litigation in response to gun violence, tracking the limited successes of victims and stakeholders suing the gun industry. We find that victories remain confined to individual actors and unlike high-impact public litigations in other areas, aggregate class actions and major public litigation led by state attorneys general are noticeably absent in the firearm context.

1. See Gluck, A.R. et al., “Civil Litigation and the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of Courts in a National Health Crisis,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 46, no. 2 (2018): 351.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI2. Hemenway, D. , Private Guns, Public Health (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006): at 211.
Google Scholar3. For the database, we conducted a systematic review of court opinions in Westlaw (using headnotes for Products Liability > Weapons and Ammunition; Weapons > Offenses; Weapons > Civil Liabilities for Negligent Entrustment or Use) and docket entries in Bloomberg Law (filtering for cases against major firearm manufacturers that fell into Personal Injury Product Liability; Other Statutory Actions; Personal injury other).
Google Scholar4. Turley, W., Rooks, J.E., Firearms Litigation (New York: Shepard's-McGraw-Hill, 1988): at 12.
Google Scholar5. See the Online Appendix for citations to all cases mentioned in this article.
Google Scholar6. Lytton, T.D. , “Tort Claims Against Gun Manufacturers for Crime-Related Injuries: Defining a Suitable Role for the Tort System in Regulating the Firearms Industry,” Missouri Law Review 65 no. 1 (2000): 24.
Google Scholar7. Musante, F. , “After Tobacco, Handgun Lawsuits,” New York Times, January 31, 1999, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/31/nyregion/after-tobacco-handgun-lawsuits.html> ().
Google Scholar8. Erichson, H.M. , “Private Lawyers, Public Lawsuits: Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Municipal Gun Litigation,” in Lytton, T.D. , ed., Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts (2005).
Google Scholar9. “California Cities' Settlement with Gun Industry Distributors, Dealers to Include Major Distribution Reforms, Payment,” City Attorney of San Francisco, August 21, 2003, available at <https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2003/08/21/california-cities-settlement-with-gun-industry-distributors-dealers-to-include-major-distribution-reforms-payment> ().
Google Scholar10. Dao, J. , “Under Legal Siege, Gun Maker Agrees to Accept Curbs,” New York Times, March 18, 2000, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/under-legal-siege-gun-maker-agrees-to-accept-curbs.html> ().
Google Scholar11. Daynard, R.A. et al., “Tobacco Litigation Worldwide,” BMJ 320 (2000): 111.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. NeJaime, D. , “Winning through Losing,” Iowa Law Review 96 (2010): 941-1012.
Google Scholar