Mike Levin: “This is a victim's right remedies issue. Do we provide a remedy for a victim of somebody's gross negligence or…”

“This is a victim's right remedies issue. Do we provide a remedy for a victim of somebody's gross negligence or recklessness that has injured that victim where the proximate cause of the injury--or a proximate cause of the injury, to be technically correct--is the defendant's recklessness or gross negligence or are we going to deny victims that remedy? Are we going to tell a victim: You have to prove that someone violated a law in order to get recovery, even though you can prove gross negligence or recklessness? Why would we immunize any particular industry from that kind of recovery where it is not somebody else who is being sued for their contribution to somebody's injury but it is the industry itself or a gunstore itself or any store that contributed, through recklessness or gross negligence, to somebody's death or injury? My amendment says where it is your own recklessness or gross negligence which is a proximate cause of an injury or a death, you should not be immunized.”