Remington Offers To Settle Sandy Hook Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel bad for the families and the victims, but how are gun manufacturers responsible for the act of a demented human? This is not a precedent that needs to be followed by others. Now all liberal lawyers and judges will use this in their anti second amendment tool box.

I was in a car accident years ago when a drunk women rear ended me. I guess I should of sued the car manufacturer of the vehicle she drove. Clearly it made her drink alcohol that night and hit me.
 
Early in my career, I got a job doing civil rights defense. (IOW, when the cops got sued, I defended them.) I learned a lot. One of the things I learned is that cops hate to settle cases, because it seems like an admission of guilt. Another thing is that there's a whole lot more that goes into the "settlement vs. trial calculus" than whether the defending party should admit guilt. In fact, I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the settlement agreement has a "no admission of guilt or wrongdoing" clause. The defending party has to look at a number of factors, including:
  • What are the odds of prevailing at trial?
  • What is the cost of defense? (Even if you win, you still have to pay your legal team.)
  • If we lose, what is the cost of an appeal?
  • If we lose, how will that shape the law going forward? Sometimes, you really don't want to set legal precedent with the facts you have in front of you.
  • What kind of publicity can we expect if we go to trial vs. if we settle?
Obviously, I don't know what those discussions were like, as I don't work for Remington's legal team. But I'd be surprised if those questions weren't raised in a few meetings on the way to where we are now.
 
If they offered 33 million, you can bet the opposition is going to say that is not enough and want more. This is bad, but the analogy with car manufacturers being responsible for drunk drivers is good. It will only take a few lawsuits against the car companies before the protection law is re-enforced so that third parties cannot be held responsible for the criminal use of their products.
 
This is all just picking over the bones of the Remington Outdoor Company. The judge set aside some money from the estate of the former Remington Outdoor Company to cover these lawsuits and they are just figuring out how much of that money goes to which lawyers and how much trickles down to the actual parties involved in the suit, and in the unlikely event there are still remaining funds to other debt holders shorted in the bankruptcy. This is all court theater at this point the company they are suing no longer exists. There is a limited pool of money, with no more to come, take what you can get and run.
 
How can we support Remington now? Perhaps this is what “they” want. It is a win win for the libs. Pay to settle the case, and anger the gun community so that they no longer buy anything from Remington.
 
beagler said:
How can we support Remington now? Perhaps this is what “they” want. It is a win win for the libs. Pay to settle the case, and anger the gun community so that they no longer buy anything from Remington.
Click to expand...

You cannot support Remington Outdoor Company now, they are gone, no more. The company was broken up and sold of in pieces, as part of the second bankruptcy in 2020, to a variety of other companies, some good, some bad. There is nothing you can do to support Remington in this. The lawyers/vultures are merely picking over the bones of a dead company.
 
Last edited:
If this thread needs to be moved to General Discussions, that's fine, but if we're going to leave it here in Legal, let's stick to the legal issues, OK?
 
This is tough sledding for Legal, as it's not really a Code issue.

Remington has been trying to settle this for near a decade now.
So, a cash settlement is not new. (Near as I can tell, only the "who" offering has changed.)
This thing is still in pre-trial motions and is nine years old, now.

If brought to trial, said proceeding is like to be a media circus, with every single aspect being declared either a huge victory or a crushing failure for the glorious good of gun control.

Cough up a few million to shut the circus up in a one-day event versus a month or two of daily bashing of my company is not complicated calculus. And is simpler than delving into a non-THR detailing of tort law in civil court.

My 2¢
 
n the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims. The court ruled that the case can move ahead based on a state law regarding unfair trade practices.

In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that “it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”


https://www.koskoff.com/sandy-hook-...n-companies-lose-major-ruling-over-liability/
 
Bruce D Pease said:
Lanza did not buy the weapon he used. He took his mother’s after he killed her.....
Click to expand...
I'd have to go back and read the pleadings, but were I arguing for the Plaintiffs here, I would argue that it doesn't matter whether he bought the gun or not. I would argue that the key point is that the Remington/Bushmaster advertising pushed him in the direction of killing all those kids, whether he actually purchased a rifle or not.
 
Looking at it from the Plaintiff's point of view, if they were smart. Remington is gone and generating no more revenue. There is a "small" pool of money from the sale of the company's parts and that is it, no more money to be had. If you don't take the offer and take it to court you might end up getting a larger awarded amount from the judge but with so much money consumed by the case you might end up with less to the actual plaintiffs. Also there are other parties entitled to parts of that 157 mil; there are other law suits to be settled (700 trigger etc) and a lot of unpaid debtors that want a piece. Ultimately the Bankruptcy judge is going to decide who gets what and in what order and when the money runs out the rest are SOL. They might be better off taking this. The longer they fight this in court the more money ultimately goes to the lawyers and no one else.
 
Spats McGee said:
I'd have to go back and read the pleadings
Click to expand...
They are buried in a thread here from a couple-three years ago in the brouhaha over the Court decisions on pretrial motions.
From potentially fickle memory, plaintiffs wanted dismissal for cause citing PLCCA. Defense contended the CT law for marketing applied, not the Federal one. CT Supreme Court held that Federal law trumped state law. SCOTUS then vacated stating that State issues were the purview of States, have a trial and decide the thing.
That's from memory.
Also from memory, every side in the argument declared both Victory! and Defeat! in each of the decisions, and as if this were a settled trial with gazetted results.
 
Spats McGee said:
I'd have to go back and read the pleadings, but were I arguing for the Plaintiffs here, I would argue that it doesn't matter whether he bought the gun or not. I would argue that the key point is that the Remington/Bushmaster advertising pushed him in the direction of killing all those kids, whether he actually purchased a rifle or not.
Click to expand...

Then does it even matter what brand of firearm he used?
Couldn’t they argue Remingtons “advertising pushed him in the direction” regardless of actual weapon used.

just trying to understand as a very not a lawyer guy. I’m currently under the impression this is, (at least trying to be sold as) an advertising case that “just happens” to be against a firearms manufacturer.
 
DeepSouth said:
Then does it even matter what brand of firearm he used?
Couldn’t they argue Remingtons “advertising pushed him in the direction” regardless of actual weapon used. ....
Click to expand...
I guess in theory, yes. But the further you get from the company actually putting the ads out there, the weaker your causal link becomes. From a Plaintiff's perspective, you have to be able to say:
  1. The Defendant did Bad Thing A;
  2. Bad Thing A hurt my client in X way;
  3. X was foreseeable by the Defendant at the time Bad Thing A was done;
  4. Therefore, the Defendant should pay my client Y amount of money.

The argument becomes weaker if it is:
  1. The Defendant didn't do Bad Thing A but Someone did;
  2. Bad Thing A hurt my client in X way;
  3. X was foreseeable by that Someone at the time Bad Thing A was done;
  4. Therefore, the Defendant should pay my client Y amount of money.
 
Lawyers have a vested interest in declining the offer and just dragging it out until the funds are exhausted. Hopefully the bankruptcy judge will not allow this.
 
twarr1 said:
Lawyers have a vested interest in declining the offer and just dragging it out until the funds are exhausted....
Click to expand...
I'm not real sure how you think lawyers get paid, but your statement is likely untrue. Remington's lawyers might have an interest in dragging it out, but even if they do, it's ethically questionable to do it unless there's a valid legal reason for continuing to fight.. The Plaintiff's lawyers? There's a pretty good chance they're on a contingency basis, in which case it's just smarter to take their 33 1/3% and move on to the next case.
 
Spats McGee said:
I guess in theory, yes. But the further you get from the company actually putting the ads out there, the weaker your causal link becomes. From a Plaintiff's perspective, you have to be able to say:
  1. The Defendant did Bad Thing A;
  2. Bad Thing A hurt my client in X way;
  3. X was foreseeable by the Defendant at the time Bad Thing A was done;
  4. Therefore, the Defendant should pay my client Y amount of money.

The argument becomes weaker if it is:
  1. The Defendant didn't do Bad Thing A but Someone did;
  2. Bad Thing A hurt my client in X way;
  3. X was foreseeable by that Someone at the time Bad Thing A was done;
  4. Therefore, the Defendant should pay my client Y amount of money.
Click to expand...
Thank You!
That’s definitely the kind of language I can understand :thumbup:
 
As much as we hate it, the CEO for the old Remington, is just doing what is needed to extricate themselves from the lawsuit. We as pro 2a see it differently. For good reason. Others also make really excellent points.
 
Last edited:
Paying off instead of going to court is SOP. By the time you pay lawyers it is often cheaper to pay than it would cost to win. Over the last 70 years Remington has paid out a LOT more than this $33 million to settle numerous lawsuits. They were sued over 100 times regarding the trigger fiasco. All of those were settled out of court and the plaintiff's in every case I'm aware of had to sign non-disclosure statements so we'll not know how much they got. But I'm betting the total is a lot more than this.

And that only includes the pre 2007 rifles. There was a separate lawsuit and recall involving the 2007-2014 rifles due to defective triggers.

Then there was the exploding shotgun barrel class action lawsuit. I believe that cost Remington $40 million. For those not familiar there were a handful of 870, 1100, and 11-87 shotgun barrels that split when fired. No one was hurt, but the basis for the suit is that guns made within a specific SN range had diminished resale value. Anyone with one of those guns at the time got $40 IIRC.

If anyone wonders why Remington went under this is it. You can't produce quality guns when you're paying off lawsuits.
 
In other news, S&W are now being sued in another mass shooting based on plaintiff claims that S&W marketing of its AR15 rifles was “irresponsible” and that the company “knew” that its AR15 style rifles could be “readily” modified for full automatic fire and “did nothing” to inhibit such modification.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litig...e-synagogue-shooting-victims-suit-2021-07-08/

Like the Remington Outdoors case, the courts are ruling that the PLCAA protections do not prohibit the plaintiffs from suing on grounds that state laws governing firearms marketing were violated. Given the coordinated campaign by anti-civil rights groups like the various Bloomberg front groups, the Gifford group, Brady etc., aided by a strong media bias and hoplophobia, all aimed at creating social stigma and fear around guns, gun owners, gun makers, and gun owner rights groups, the plaintiffs are calculating that a jury may be willing to rule that the marketing of evil black rifles is irresponsible and a violation of state laws on such marketing.

Once a ruling against a gun maker is achieved on such grounds, it becomes a fifty state game of whack-a-mole. If one imagine a mere million dollars per state in legal fees, a $33 million dollar no admission of guilt settlement looks cost effective. If one imagines a future class action ruling and the potential bonding requirements across the fifty states, a considerably higher dollar figure, especially in a settlement that, for example, allows funding through the collection of fees from future sales to distributors and wholesalers, becomes quite cost effective.

S&W restructured in the last 24 months to specifically separate out the firearms business, almost certainly to prepare for such a settlement and the goal of selling T/C could well be to generate the up front portion of a cash settlement, although that is purely speculative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hps1
  • Locked
Connecticut Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Parents’ Lawsuit against Gun-Maker to Proceed
Replies
3
Views
509
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
DeepSouth
  • Locked
Sandy hook parents to sue Bushmaster
2 3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
8K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Remington offers $33M to settle Assault Weapons suit by Sandy Hook families
Replies
9
Views
496
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
Colorado: "Parents of Klebold, Harris settle suits"
Replies
6
Views
1K
Gray Peterson
G
A
  • Locked
Judge Strikes Down Sandy Hook Suit Against AR-15 Manufacturer
Replies
22
Views
2K
Red Wind
Red Wind
Back
Top