City of Cincinnati v. Beretta
In Ohio, Brady’s legal team was able to set precedent to hold irresponsible members of the firearms industry accountable for supplying and profiting from the criminal gun market. With the help of Brady, the city of Cincinnati filed a complaint against fifteen handgun manufacturers, three trade associations, and one handgun distributor. We alleged that the defendants manufactured, marketed, and distributed their firearms in ways facilitate firearm accessibility to prohibited users, including children and criminals.
Rather than file an answer, 15 of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, and the Ohio court of appeals affirmed on similar grounds. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, sided with Cincinnati and Brady. In 2002, it issued a ruling holding that this type of lawsuit — one brought by a municipality against a gun manufacturers to recover damages associated with the costs of firearm violence incurred by the municipality — should not be dismissed.
Ohio’s Supreme Court found that if Cincinnati suffered “actual injury and damages including, but not limited to, significant expenses for police, emergency, health, prosecution, corrections, and other services,” it could recover those damages from the gun industry. With this holding, Brady paved the way for Ohio municipalities to recover from firearms industry members for the costs, including human lives, their irresponsibility inflicts.