The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against the manufacturer of a handgun used in a mass shooting, alleging negligent design, public nuisance, and strict liability for failing to incorporate authorized user ('smart gun') technology.
The defendant moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The court dismissed the motion regarding the negligence claim, finding it fell within the established duty of care categories for goods dangerous per se and products liability.
However, the court struck the claims for public nuisance and strict liability, concluding they were legally untenable in the context of product liability.
