Family Files Wrongful Death Suit Against Edibles Maker, Rec Store  

The family of a Denver woman who was shot and killed by her husband in 2014 after he consumed cannabis-infused candy is suing the manufacturer of the edible and the store that sold it for wrongful death.

The case is possibly the first wrongful death lawsuit against the recreational cannabis industry, the Denver Post reported. At least one legal expert said it was unlikely to succeed.

The lawsuit claims that Gaia’s Garden, the company that made the edible, and Nutritional Elements, the store that sold it, “negligently, recklessly and purposefully” failed to warn Richard Kirk about the candy’s potency and side effects, including psychotic behavior.

In January 2015, Colorado regulations went into effect requiring recreational edibles to be wrapped individually or demarcated in portions of 10 milligrams of THC or less.

Sean McAllister, who represents Gaia’s Garden, said the wholesale company has always always complied with state requirements governing labeling and packaging.

The chief operating officer for Nutritional Elements, Tiffany Goldman, declined to comment.

Sam Kamin, a professor of marijuana law and policy at the University of Denver, said the suit’s chances of success were slim.

“We don’t hold liquor stores responsible and we don’t hold vodka producers responsible for drunk drivers,” Kamin told the Post.

 

7 comments on “Family Files Wrongful Death Suit Against Edibles Maker, Rec Store  
  1. Jeffrey McPhee on

    And so it begins…. Having adequate protections in place should be a priority for the Cannabis industry. While saddened by any senseless death, I’m even more upset over sleazy lawyers and their opportunistic tactics.

    Reply
    • Amber Jones on

      We were told nothing in this article. He could have had a history of psychosis, he also could be allergic. Maybe he would have shot her anyways, and she had it coming to her. We don’t know any of that. Sleazy lawyers? How about don’t shoot someone and then accuse everyone around them of being inadequate. “Inadequate” laws and “senseless” death’s, “opportunistic tactics”, what a load of horse manure. Liberals.

      Reply
  2. numbnuts on

    The gun company, the bullet company and gun powder company should be to blame as well.
    lets get everyone involved to make this fare.

    i haven’t seen any rules on the guns that says
    ” please dont shoot people, they may have children at home”

    Reply
  3. Craig Delsack on

    Following professor Karmin’s reply, the family will have to prove the edible company had a standard of care in which it didn’t reasonably meet ((is the standard that the company knew or should have known that every person that ate a portion of the edible acted the same way – very unlikely) – not acting within the standard of care is known as “negligence”), that this negligence was the proximate cause of the death, and that there was no other condition or factor to cause that result. This is pretty hard to prove that this was the likely cause over any other factor.

    With all due respect to the family (this is tragic), but arguments could be made that the gun and the bullet manufacturer and the store that sold the gun and ammo were negligent to sell to someone that consumes alcohol or drugs, or that perhaps they should have done a mental background check on the purchaser. What responsibility do the other adults in the home have to make sure a gun in a house with children is locked away so that someone under the influence could not access the gun or ammo? Perhaps the husband might have taken the gun out first intending harm, and simply ate a little of the candy to take the edge off his predetermined decision? Note, the criminal case is pending so facts are not yet known.

    Unfortunately, this tragedy presents a slippery slope – making salacious headlines. Perhaps this case at hand is a “shiny red ball” distracting from other social issues like gun control and the identification and care for the mentally ill.

    Reply
  4. Craig Delsack on

    Following professor Karmin’s reply, generally in wrongful death cases the family will have to prove the edible company had a standard of care in which it didn’t reasonably meet ((is the standard that the company knew or should have known that every person that ate a portion of the edible acted the same way – very unlikely) – not acting within the standard of care is known as “negligence”), that this negligence was the proximate cause of the death, and that there was no other condition or factor to cause that result. This is pretty hard to prove that this was the likely cause over any other factor. I am not a Colorado lawyer.

    With all due respect to the family (this is tragic), but arguments could be made that the gun and the bullet manufacturer and the store that sold the gun and ammo were negligent to sell to someone that consumes alcohol or drugs, or that perhaps they should have done a mental background check on the purchaser. What responsibility do the other adults in the home have to make sure a gun in a house with children is locked away so that someone under the influence could not access the gun or ammo? Perhaps the husband might have taken the gun out first intending harm, and simply ate a little of the candy to take the edge off his predetermined decision? Note, the criminal case is pending so facts are not yet known.

    Unfortunately, this tragedy presents a slippery slope – making salacious headlines. Perhaps this case at hand is a “shiny red ball” distracting from other social issues like gun control and the identification and care for the mentally ill.

    Reply
  5. Jimmy Limo on

    What was the final toxicology report on the shooter ? I heard he may have had prescription opioids and more in his system. Usually cannabis alone does NOT produce violent behavior…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *