Gunmaker Remington settles lawsuit with Sandy Hook families for $73 million

[Aim1]

I don't understand why they'd settle. They should be protected under the PLCAA.

I'm assuming they did the math and decided that paying out now would cost less than lengthy litigation but what precedent does it set for when someone wants to sue them or any other gun manufacturer again?





https://www.axios.com/sandy-hook-remington-arms-liable-0b504b12-e9a7-44ed-aa49-45271e98d998.html

 

[mcb]

The Remington of that lawsuit no longer exists, not since late 2020. Everything since late 2020 that they call Remington is simply the insurance company(s) that was left holding the bag. A pool of money was set aside during the second banryptcy for this and other ongoing legal cases against the former Remington Outdoor Company. The families settle because they were never going to get any more money out of the law suit than what the insurance company offered since there was no company left to generate any more money. The second bankruptcy deadend all lawsuits against the former Remington Outdoor Company from following any one particular brand to its new owner. ie Sandy Hook families cannot sue Franklin Armory the new owners of Bushmaster.

 

[CDW4ME]

This type of lawsuit should be prohibited.

 

[lemaymiami]

Lots of things - on both sides of the law (criminal and civil) could stand some serious review and re-working. All the forces in play though make it doubtful to me - that it will ever occur... Not hard to find serious in-justice on every side of most proceedings - but it still beats whatever's in second place around the world.

As a cop I spent a fair amount of time in my career (22 years) in one courtroom or other... I only saw what I thought was real justice once or twice in that entire time... Mostly it was about winning and/or losing (sometimes you get both in the same proceeding...) - and always who profits one way or the other. No, I'm not eager at all to ever be in court again....

 

[rust collector]

The court system has been weaponized. Companies like Remington may be protected by legislation and may have violated no laws, yet be spent to death by relentless "discovery" cost and litigation, defamation by media, and other costs of doing business under a cloud. The settlement was from insurance, and usually such settlements reflect a determination that defense costs and potential for a bad outcome outweigh the cost of settlement. Plaintiffs risk only litigation expense, while Defendants' continued existence is at stake. Settlement was possible only because there was no realistic chance of getting more. It's not about justice.

 

[.455_Hunter]

This may sound alarmist, but don't count on the future ability to purchase new firearms. If this starts happening with any regularity, mass commercial production will be a thing of the past. Plan accordingly for your future family members.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"This may sound alarmist, but don't count on the future ability to purchase new firearms. If this starts happening with any regularity, mass commercial production will be a thing of the past."

That scenario would make underground manufacture and black market distribution very profitable.

 

[mcb]

No doubt this and other legal cases had a draining effect on the company but it was far from the only reason Remington is no longer a company. It would have been interesting if Remington had not gone bell- up and have seen how this legal case would have been ruled on in court. Remington was not going to settle, but the second bankruptcy forced the insurance companies hands.

 

[ExtremeSquared]

The wildest implications are probably for big breweries and distilleries.

 

[upptick]

Bushmaster / Remington was sued under the unique theory that promoting / advertising / associating a particular weapon with glorified violence would induce and / or encourage reckless use of said firearm. I think the plaintiffs used Unfair Trade Practice law related to unethical advertising. By the way, it's not an accident that Ruger currently uses marketing slogans like "Rugged, Reliable Firearms" and "Modern Sporting Rifle" while Smith and Wesson promotes their guns under such trademarks as "Shield" and not something like Bushmaster's ads which included stuff like "Consider your Man Card Reissued," "Forces of Opposition Bow Down," and associating civilian ARs with those carried by elite military units.

 

[Aim1]

 

[Plan2Live]

This is not a good precedent.

 

[mcb]

This is not a good precedent.

It's not really a precedent since there was never a court ruling. It would be been good to have seen this case through to the end but Remington's demise spoiled that.

 

[rust collector]

This is not a good precedent.

It is not a precedent. It was not the decision of a court. It is a reflection of unfortunate facts, irrational acts, and a culture that has come to regard every misfortune as someone or something else's fault.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

It is not a precedent. It was not the decision of a court. It is a reflection of unfortunate facts, irrational acts, and a culture that has come to regard every misfortune as someone or something else's fault.

In the words of Milton Friedman, we are now in a time where no one is responsible for what they did, but everyone is responsible for what other people did.

 

[lemaymiami]

Remember… the anti-2A folks are always looking for the slightest victory in their various efforts to end private ownership and legal use of every kind of firearms …. This only happened because of the specific situation that their target was in.
Their arguments have not produced this settlement. That will have to wait for another court case…

 

[mcb]

Good article on the settlement from a pro-2A source:

https://thereload.com/remington-insurers-settle-with-sandy-hook-families-for-73-million/

 

[DustyGmt]

This type of lawsuit should be prohibited.

Yes. It's complete and utter garbage, right or wrong doesn't enter into it, I'm curious as to what precedent would make them liable but someone smarter than me ran the numbers and figured out the best move going forward for both sides but from a purely moral standpoint, wth? While my view may be very simplistic, I can't help but liken the incident to "crazed motorist plows through crowd, killing 10, dozens injured", so the driver mowed em down with a Ford, is Ford liable?

It'd be interesting to find out the particulars of the case and how exactly Remington is culpable... Is the old remington we know and love gone in part because of this incident or is it entirely unrelated?

 

[Mk VII]

As a cop I spent a fair amount of time in my career (22 years) in one courtroom or other... I only saw what I thought was real justice once or twice in that entire time.

"You'll get justice in the next world, sir. In this one, all you'll get is the law." (can't remember who said this first)

 

[starling]

There is no Remington firearms anymore. This is all just optics in a desperate attempt to control the narrative since the MSM propoganda is on life support. Had it went to actual court the Anti Groups would have lost. Insurance company is most likely on the same team as the Anti Groups. In the last week alone they have Joe Rogan, Canada, and now Durham Report. They can parade this nonsense around and drum up a shooting or false flag incident (probably Canada) to get their ground troops mobilized for the mid terms. Not going to work though.

Beto is claiming to be pro gun now... look it up.

 

[gunlaw]

This is not a good precedent.

I don’t think Plan is referring to legal precedent. True it is not. I think the reference is as to future cases being settled out of court. We really don’t know what prompted the settlement and probably never will.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"... Bushmaster's ads ... included stuff like "Consider your Man Card Reissued," "Forces of Opposition Bow Down," ....

Was it ever established that Adam Lanza ever saw those ads?

 

[Insignificant bill]

He was mentally ill. That should have been the focus not the tool used.

 

[CapnMac]

Was it ever established that Adam Lanza ever saw those ads?

Well, now, as no jury was actually assembled to make any findings of fact in the matter.

The premise was that CT had laws that stated that such advertising could be used against parties in court.

For the lawyers for the insurance company, defending, they were up against the wall of it being Civil procedure, so they only had to get the jury to see a "preponderance" as a test, and not "beyond a shadow of doubt" as with criminal cases.

So, convincing 10 of 12 people that such advertising could have had an effect is far simpler than getting 12/12 to absolute believe it was a critical, pivotal, fact in the case.

 

[Riomouse911]

As soon as I saw this headline, the Doors song “This is the end” literally started playing in my mind.

This is exactly what the antis were “gunning” for.

Es no bueno mis muchachos, es no bueno.

Stay safe.