Sandra Torres, whose daughter was murdered in the Uvalde elementary school massacre, is suing local police, the school district, the manufacturer of the gun used in the shooting, and the store that provided the shooter the gun.
Torres was the mother of 10-year-old Eliahna — one of 19 children and two teachers killed in the May 24 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School. Security camera footage showed that law enforcement officers waited in the school hallway for 77 minutes before finally entering the classroom to engage the shooter.
“Eliahna loved her family, and she knew how much we loved her. I miss her every moment of every day,” said Torres. “I’ve brought this lawsuit to seek accountability. No parent should ever have to go through what I have.”
On November 28, a federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Torres by Everytown Law in coordination with the San Antonio-based LM Law Group PLLC.
According to a press release from Everytown Law, the suit names multiple defendants alleged to have “enabled or exacerbated the shooting,” including Daniel Defense, the gun manufacturer, and Oasis Outback, the Uvalde gun store where the shooter pick up the firearm.
Other defendants include the City of Uvalde, the County of Uvalde, the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (UCISD), the Uvalde Police Department, the UCISD Police Department, the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office, the Uvalde County Constables, and the Texas Department of Public Safety.
“The shooting in Uvalde was a horrific tragedy and wholly preventable,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law. “The massacre that killed Eliahna Torres and 20 others that day wasn’t just an act of one violent, troubled young man armed with an assault rifle. There are several actors responsible for putting the gun in his possession and failing to protect the children he attacked. This lawsuit is intended to hold them accountable.”
The lawsuit claims Daniel Defense illustrated “negligence” in marketing and selling a semiautomatic rifle to 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, alleging the manufacturer used “violent and militaristic imagery” to appeal to the “impulsive tendencies of susceptible teens and young men who are attracted to violence and military fantasies.”
The suit also makes claims against Oasis Outback for the “negligent transfer” of the Daniel Defense rifle used in the shooting, along with the “negligent sale” of ammunition and a Smith & Wesson semiautomatic rifle to Ramos.
On Ramos’ 18th birthday on May 16, he purchased 1,740 rounds of ammunition online, along with a DDM4 V7 semiautomatic rifle from Daniel Defense, which he requested to be shipped to Oasis Outback.
The next day, he went to Oasis Outback and purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle, then returned the day after that to buy an additional 375 rounds of ammunition.
Two days later, on May 20, Ramos returned to Oasis Outback to pick up the Daniel Defense rifle he had ordered online and paid a $50 transfer fee to the store. The lawsuit claims Oasis Outback ignored numerous red flags, such as Ramos purchasing thousands of dollars of firearms and ammunition within days of turning 18.
Additionally, the lawsuit makes claims against the City of Uvalde, the County of Uvalde, and UCISD for their alleged failure to adequately train officers and for supposedly violating the constitutional rights of Robb Elementary students and teachers by barricading them inside a classroom with the shooter.
“According to training and policy, officers are supposed to engage active shooters immediately,” the lawsuit reads. “They did not do so.”
The defendants have yet to issue responses to the lawsuit.
While Uvalde government officials are facing numerous lawsuits, as previously covered by The Dallas Express, suing Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback potentially rests on uncertain legal grounds.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when their products are used to commit crimes.
While both dealers and manufacturers can be held responsible for selling defective products, the act states, “The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system.”
The expressed purpose of the law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others.”
“Under the law, the manufacturer of the gun used by the criminal that day isn’t responsible legally for his actions,” said James B. Vogts, an attorney who represented Remington when the company faced a similar lawsuit from the families of children killed during the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012. That case was settled out of court in February with a $73 million payment from Remington to the families.
I don’t see how the case against the gun manufacturer has any merit. The gun is legal to manufacture. It operated as intended. They did not sell it to the perp. We don’t sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers. We don’t sue knife manufactures for stabbings. We don’t sue fertilizer manufacturers for bombings.
Suing the police department or school for negligence, I can understand. Suing the manufacturer of a tool of a madman makes no sense.