Supreme court allows Remington to be sued by Sandy Hook victims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Car manufacturers advertise high performance cars as the car that will make you the man. 0 to 60 performance and taking curves like it's on rails, top end speed are normal claims to fame.
If someone does harm to another because of high speed driving negligence, will the car manufacturer be held responsible. I think not.

Does not mean you can't sue em. Frivolous law suites are a dime a dozen. Have been going on since the time of Methuselah. Yes, even a sad tragic event that was nothing but the act of sick, twisted jerk will be exploited to make a dime. It is very possible the Bean Counters at the manufacture would look at the numbers and see if a settlement would be cheaper than going to court even they they were completely at no fault.

gFJZTcS.jpg
 
Does not mean you can't sue em. Frivolous law suites are a dime a dozen. Have been going on since the time of Methuselah. Yes, even a sad tragic event that was nothing but the act of sick, twisted jerk will be exploited to make a dime. It is very possible the Bean Counters at the manufacture would look at the numbers and see if a settlement would be cheaper than going to court even they they were completely at no fault.

View attachment 871302


You're absolutely right. The manufacturing laws today require all products be made so the stupidest person on earth can't hurt themselves.
The problem here is, if this is successful it will open the flood gate. Because of the state it's in, the gun will probably lose. I hope that in the back rooms of the supreme court this is the plan, and reversed on appeal making the decision more public and final.
 
You're absolutely right. The manufacturing laws today require all products be made so the stupidest person on earth can't hurt themselves.
The problem here is, if this is successful it will open the flood gate. Because of the state it's in, the gun will probably lose. I hope that in the back rooms of the supreme court this is the plan, and reversed on appeal making the decision more public and final.
I doubt the Plaintiff gives a hoot about winning, just cash. If there was a win, it would not only open the floodgates to firearm manufacturers but to every product every made where some stupid fool hurt himself or others. I do not think Supreme Court Judges are in a back room plotting on how to work around the law.
 
They may advertise smarter now but it doesn't matter if I'm correct.

His mother bought the gun, not him so the point is moot I'd think.
If they're basing the case on the advertising being a factor, it shouldn't matter, you're right. He would have taken whatever Mom had. The advertising affects purchasers, thieves not so much.

"Say, that there Macho Guns AR-3500 looks awesome in Battlegeek and in that ad I saw, gotta find out where to steal me one of them!"
 
My understanding is that it is not technically a product liability/defective design suit. It's an advertising liability/illegal marketing suit, claiming that Remington's ads encouraged violence.
I think it's a stretch to consider advertising being a factor in someone stealing a gun.
 
So how much will this now cost Remington as this continues? How many similar suits will be launched?

I’ve read our legal types informed and procedural analyses and the speculation the court is playing 4D chess to set up a greater case. I would have preferred taking with a clear decision that the suit violates several amendments. Guess they are so in the weeds that they don’t think in this simple way. Or maybe the pro gun 4 don’t trust Roberts.
 
I just don't understand the logic of something being manufactured that functions safely and properly when used correctly and legally. Of course, wasn't it illegal for Mom to have those weapons in CT to begin with? That said, I didn't understand Tylenol losing when someone doctored their product and someone got sick, I don't understand that thinking at all.
 
Sorry guys’
I just struggle with these Shooting’s and senseless loss of life, my heart goes out to the families and first responders whose life’s are changed forever. y’all go back to typing & talking about legal positions I’ll shut up and log out.
J

Yes, it is senseless and heartbreaking.

But making public policy based on knee jerk emotional reactions to exceeding rare, but highly publicized tragedies makes for bad public policy.

I forgot where I read it, but someone did the math & figured out that your child has a less than 1 in 1 million chance of being killed in a school shooting.

Almost 700 are killed every year in automobile crashes.

Somewhere around 450 are MURDERED BY THEIR OWN PARENTS! That's not counting the thousands of others whose lives are scared forever by abuse and neglect.

There's a lot of heartbreaking & senseless in this world. It can never be legislated or litigated away.

Holding a manufacturer liable for the criminal misuse of its products is ridiculous. If I beat you to death with my guitar, is Fender responsible?
 
Yes, it is senseless and heartbreaking.

But making public policy based on knee jerk emotional reactions to exceeding rare, but highly publicized tragedies makes for bad public policy.

I forgot where I read it, but someone did the math & figured out that your child has a less than 1 in 1 million chance of being killed in a school shooting.

Almost 700 are killed every year in automobile crashes.

Somewhere around 450 are MURDERED BY THEIR OWN PARENTS! That's not counting the thousands of others whose lives are scared forever by abuse and neglect.

There's a lot of heartbreaking & senseless in this world. It can never be legislated or litigated away.
"Never let a tragedy...."
No amount of money will bring any of those kids back, but the idea that someone has to pay is very popular. He's dead, Mom, the owner of those guns is dead, so someone has to pay. It's right up there with "Someone has to do something".
I'm more saddened by the kids who are neglected and abused by their parents, there's more of them and more perpetrators.

Holding a manufacturer liable for the criminal misuse of its products is ridiculous. If I beat you to death with my guitar, is Fender responsible?
If you use a Strat and a Tele you're a multiple O'Fender
 
I just don't understand the logic of something being manufactured that functions safely and properly when used correctly and legally. Of course, wasn't it illegal for Mom to have those weapons in CT to begin with? That said, I didn't understand Tylenol losing when someone doctored their product and someone got sick, I don't understand that thinking at all.

I believe at the time it was perfectly legal for Adam Lanza's mother to own the rifle. The AWB Ct. passed, IIRC, came after the event, and because of the event.

Her owning the weapon legally doesn't mean she was in any way wise in how she handled it .......
 
Member SPJ says...
''I just struggle with these Shooting’s and senseless loss of life, my heart goes out to the families and first responders whose life’s are changed forever.''

Yes, absolutely. And we should NEVER forget that, these things impact real people. Even the perp who gets shot in a legit self defense, where he/she started it, is senseless. The possibility although slim of a 'life turnaround', which I have seen professionally...forever gone.

And 1000X more so of little kiddies. Forever, no Thanksgiving next week, the permanent empty chair. It's senseless, frustrating, all that rolled up into one. And to that what is echoed here and other lesser :) forums, NOT MY FAULT; protect my innocence of these crimes, too! Making extra victims, all not responsible, doesn't fix the past and rarely effects the future.

Enforce the laws on the books 1st!!
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I wonder if this opens the door for the people that owned the World Trade Center to sue Boeing for making the 767 that hit the South tower? In my mind this is a case of someone wanting to win a ghetto lottery under the guise of symbolic justice. While I agree the ad is at best in poor taste if not outright stupidity if it is a call the violence then the ban on so called assault weapons with it's vivid descriptions of the weapons "capabilities" and terror inducing cosmetics are even more so. Perhaps it's time to file suits against the politicians encouraging armed violence in the name of stopping it.
 
The simple fact is they can't sue the person who fired the gun, they can't sue the person who bought the gun, but "Somebody has to pay!", and Remington has (or at least had) deep pockets.

This is exactly it.
Someone was convinced it would bring some kind of closure by someone that was themselves convinced it would bring closure. Or a payday. Or be a political chess move.
Remington will be hurt in any outcome. They get sued and lose, they lose money and public reputation and possibly open the floodgates as a precedence. The same if they settle. They get sued and win, they lose money. They get the case dropped, they lose money.
Because the lawyers have to be paid. Remington has to pay their own lawyers and, as I very much doubt the parents' lawyers are doing this from their own pockets, that rules out any funding on that side but the parents or their backers. So attempts to claim countersuit for any reason or even demand legal fees if Remington wins will be a PR nightmare.
 
Last edited:
I see two different approaches to suing the gun companies for criminal misuse of a legal product.
The rabid antis want to drive the gun companies out of business, leaving only a small subsidized industry to arm their minions.
The lawyers want to use it as a cash cow, each party to a class action gets $10, the lawyers get $1000000. They will want to keep the industry healthy to keep paying them, kind of like tobacco. Huge settlements for Bad Stuff, but not so great as to do away with the source of settlements.
 
I hope there isn't a single Remington product ever shipped to CT ever again. Probably won't happen. But it is a nice pipe dream.
 
f I beat you to death with my guitar, is Fender responsible?

Maybe we need to all buy some guitars, a nice Les Paul should do the trick.
Then instead of 9mm and .45 we could debate Fender vs Gibson.

All because you saw it here

or on TV as a kid?

tsk tsk tsk, violent cartoons...

Well the victim or his/her family need to sue, hhmm lets see
Hanna Barbera,
Whoever made the TV if you saw it on TV as a kid
(maybe the company who provided electric power for the TV?)

If you saw it on youtube them of course, and your ISP and the maker of the computer and monitor, and whoever made the mouse if it is a different company than the computer and the monitor.
Maybe whoever made the desk and chair you were using when you used the computer
and of course that evil electric company again.

Got to be able get some money from somebody.......:barf:


Hopefully Remington will prevail.
If it ends up at SCOTUS maybe they will reach a decision that will put this type of suit to bed once and for all.


It sad that these things happen we just had another here in CA and I am sure are the lawmakers here are busy coming up with new solutions to the "gun problem"
It would not surprise me if CA tries for an outright ban on all firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top