For instance, Colt is attempting to construct a personalized safety device that would allow a gun to fire only when activated by a signal sent out by a computer chip contained in a ring or bracelet worn by the owner. But high-tech devices like the ones under development at Colt are still years away from general use. Even after they are fully developed they will have to be tested for safety and reliability before they are sold to the public. At this point, marketing them would be irresponsible - and would open firearms makers to standard liability lawsuits. As a matter of policy and law, legislators and consumer product safety regulatory agencies will determine if and when safety devices are viable and safe enough to merit mandated inclusion on firearms.
Judges have neither the expertise nor the authority to make such determinations.
Accordingly, they routinely have deferred to those who do have such specialized knowledge or authority. To take any other position would be irresponsible. In what jury members admitted was a tortuous compromise, for the first time ever a jury held some gun manufacturers liable for shooting injuries on the basis of negligent marketing and distribution practices. Although post-trial interviews revealed that eight of the 11 jurors opposed finding either negligence or liability, the jury found 15 of the 25 manufacturers at least partially to blame for three of the seven shootings in question and awarded damages in one. It found six companies negligent but decided that their negligence did not contribute to any of the plaintiffs' injuries.