There is actuall a concepte in law called "intervening supervening criminal act." There is also proximate cause.
(ie you don't sue the maker of a car used in a bank robery)
These gun lawsuits are specific to induce a nusance based settlement. They also depend on the leftist leaning and ignorance of juries.
If you can get this type of tort reform through the senate, it can be later expanded.
its all one step at a time.
((perhaps we should consider professional jurrors?))
The concept that you call "intervening supervening criminal act" (I am not a lawyer and have no knowledge of this term) seems to require that a person use common sense and that a judge would dismiss with prejudice any lawyer who would dare to file such a frivilous lawsuit. However, we all know that there are activist judges out there who will allow such stupid lawsuits to go forward WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that the primary reasons for this lawsuit are publicity and the hope that they can use lawyers fees to destroy the gun industry.
What is to stop that same judge from allowing a lawsuit against GM and Anhauser-Busch because their dealers sold booze and a car to a "known drunken driving offender" who then got drunk and plowed into a group of kindergarteners?