Young v. Arms

16 Citing cases

  1. City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    337 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 13 times
    Rejecting contention that public nuisance law is limited to actions involving real property or to statutory or regulatory violations involving public health or safety and permitting nuisance claim to go forward

    Illinois courts have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition of public nuisance. Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill. App.3d 948, 958, 765 N.E.2d 1 (2001), citing Wheat v. Freeman Coal Mining Corp., 23 Ill. App.3d 14, 18, 319 N.E.2d 290 (1974). "A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public."

  2. In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation

    212 F. Supp. 2d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2002)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs' negligence claim was a disguised failure-to-warn claim, which was therefore preempted

    An Illinois court has also taken a broad view of nuisance, sustaining a public nuisance claim against gun manufacturers. Young v. Bryco Arms, 765 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. 2001).

  3. Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n

    342 Ill. App. 3d 95 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 48 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a complaint sounding in fraud must allege, inter alia, at least one allegation that the defendant falsely stated a material fact or concealed a material fact that the defendant had a duty to disclose

    Stated otherwise, a public nuisance is "an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B (1979), cited as authority in Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill.App.3d 948, 958, 262 Ill.Dec. 175, 765 N.E.2d 1 (2002), appeal allowed by 201 Ill.2d 619, 271 Ill.Dec. 944, 786 N.E.2d 202 (2002) .         The public health and safety are common rights an interference with which is sufficient to support a public nuisance claim.

  4. City of Chicago v. Latronica Asphalt

    346 Ill. App. 3d 264 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a waste dump constituted a nuisance because "[w]aste disposed of on the site could migrate onto adjacent properties through runoff from the site"

    See Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63, 100-02, 767 N.E.2d 314 (2002) (privately owned site of coal tar gas plant); City of Chicago v. Cecola, 75 Ill. 2d 423, 427, 389 N.E.2d 526 (1979) (privately owned establishment for prostitution). In Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill. App. 3d 948, 959, 765 N.E.2d 1 (2001), appeal allowed, 201 Ill. 2d 619, 786 N.E.2d 202 (2002), this court stated: "A sufficient pleading for a public nuisance cause of action consists of facts alleging a right common to the general public, a transgression of those rights by the defendant and resulting damages.

  5. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    315 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that New York City was not in privity with New York State

    Id. at 446; cf. Sturm, Ruger, Index No. 402586/00, at 26-27 (dismissing public nuisance claim before answers were filed or discovery was taken, but specifically noting facts which, if alleged, might be sufficient to state a cause of action). Compare other federal and state cases approving public nuisance claims against members of the firearms industry, e.g., Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003); White v. Smith Wesson Corp., 97 F. Supp.2d 816 (N.D. Ohio 2000); Chicago v. BerettaU.S.A. Corp., 785 N.E.2d 16 (Ill.App.Ct. 2003); Young v. Bryco. Arms, 765 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001); City of Gary v. Smith Wesson, Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. Dec. 23, 2003); Boston v. Smith Wesson Corp., 2000 WL 1473568 (Mass.Super.Ct. July 13, 2000); James v. Arms Tech. Inc., 820 A.2d 27 (N.J.Super.Ct. App. Div. 2003); Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002); Johnson v. Bulls Eye Shooter Supply, 2003 WL 21639244 (Wash.Sup.Ct. June 27, 2003); Lemongello v. Will Co., Inc., 2003 WL 21488208 (W.Va. Cir. Ct. June 19, 2003), with federal and state cases disapproving public nuisance claims against industry members, e.g., City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 211 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2002); Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2001); Ganim v. Smith and Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. 2001).

  6. JOHNSON v. ARMS

    03 CV 2582 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2004)

    (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Aug. 10, 2001) (dismissing public nuisance claim before answers were filed or discovery was taken, but specifically noting facts which, if alleged, might be sufficient to state a cause of action), aff'd. 761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (N.Y.App.Div. 2003), leave to appeal denied, 100 N.Y.2d 514 (2003). For other federal and state cases approving public nuisance claims against members of the firearms industry, see e.g., Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003); White v. Smith Wesson Corp., 97 F. Supp.2d 816 (N.D. Ohio 2000); Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 785 N.E.2d 16 (Ill.App.Ct. 2003); Young v. Bryco Arms, 765 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001); Gary v. Smith Wesson. Corp., 2003 WL 23010035 (Ind. Dec. 23, 2003); Boston v. Smith Wesson Corp., 2000 WL 1473568 (Mass.Super.Ct. July 13, 2000); James v. Arms Tech. Inc., 820 A.2d 27 (N.J.Super.Ct. App. Div. 2003);Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 2002). A. Causation

  7. Ileto v. Glock Inc.

    194 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    The Court's review of the resulting decisions reveals that most courts have declined to impose liability on the firearm manufacturers. See Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3rd Cir. 2001); City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 126 F. Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa. 2000), aff'd 277 F.3d 415 (3rd Cir. 2002); Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 222, 727 N.Y.S.2d 7, 750 N.E.2d 1055 (2001); but see City of Boston v. Smith Wesson Corp., No. 1999-2590, 2000 WL 1473568 (Mass.Super.Ct. July 13, 2000); Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill. App.3d 948, 262 Ill.Dec. 175, 765 N.E.2d 1 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001). The Court finds these other opinions to be persuasive authority, but is at all times bound by the precedent established by California court decisions in anticipating how the California Supreme Court would decide this motion.

  8. City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A

    213 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2004)   Cited 225 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine applies, even absent a contractual relationship, where “the damages sought by the plaintiffs are ‘solely economic damages' in the sense that they represent costs incurred in the absence of harm to a plaintiff's person or property”

    The authority cited for this statement, however, was not persuasive. The appellate court cited its own recent decision in Young v. Bryco Arms, 327 Ill. App. 3d 948 (2001), a case virtually identical to the present case except that it was brought by private individuals, and a law review article by one of plaintiffs' own attorneys (D. Kairys, The Governmental Handgun Cases and the Elements and Underlying Policies of Public Nuisance Law, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 1175, 1182 (2000)). The only other authority cited by the appellate court for this proposition is Commonwealth Edison, 24 Ill. App. 3d at 632-33, in which the court concluded that although the defendant demonstrated that it was in compliance with applicable standards, the court was "not bound by federal air-pollution standards in deciding whether the facility's emissions constitute a common law nuisance."

  9. In re Firearm Cases

    126 Cal.App.4th 959 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 63 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary judgment in public nuisance action absent triable issue as to causation

    The Illinois Supreme Court reversed decisions cited by plaintiffs, finding that a cause of action for nuisance cannot be stated against gun manufacturers. (See City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (2002) 337 Ill.App.3d 1 [ 785 N.E.2d 16, 271 Ill.Dec. 365], revd. (Ill. 2004) 213 Ill.2d 351 [ 821 N.E.2d 1099, 290 Ill.Dec. 525] [holding gun manufacturers have no duty to prevent illegal use of their product]; and Young v. Bryco Arms (2001) 327 Ill.App.3d 948 [ 765 N.E.2d 1, 262 Ill.Dec. 175], revd. (Ill. 2004) 213 Ill.2d 433 [ 821 N.E.2d 1078, 290 Ill.Dec. 504] [holding manufacturing a gun is not the legal cause of injury produced by a gun-wielding killer not under the defendant's control].) In Ileto v. Glock, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003) 349 F.3d 1191 ( Ileto), a Ninth Circuit panel majority reinstated claims of negligence and nuisance against gun manufacturers and distributors brought by individual victims and survivors of an assault by a gunman.

  10. Ileto v. Glock Inc.

    349 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,338 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding gun manufacturers liable because they were "in the best position to protect against the risk of harm" caused by the purchase of illegal guns from all of the different sellers to whom they distributed

    See City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 337 Ill.App.3d 1, 271 Ill.Dec. 365, 785 N.E.2d 16, 24 (2002). See also Young v. Bryco Arms, 765 N.E.2d 1, 10-11 (2001) (citing section 821B to define public nuisance and holding that plaintiffs' complaints sufficiently pleaded a right common to the general public, unreasonable interference with that right, and resulting damages, as the elements of a cause of action for public nuisance in a case against gun manufacturers). 4.