Sandy hook parents to sue Bushmaster

[HexHead]

I was just reading that the negligence and wrongful death lawsuit asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use.

The families are also suing Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the Bushmaster rifle was purchased.

I'm surprised they're not suing the ammo manufacturer as well.

 

[Jlr2267]

Suing is easy...winning is hard because it requires reason and facts. This suit will fail

 

[Hacker15E]

Although they mis-spell "Newtown" (excellent journalism!), this article explains how the filing attorneys believe this lawsuit is somehow not covered by the PLCAA.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/remington_named_in_lawsuit_fil.html

Gun makers are generally shielded from lawsuits by a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Newton suit uses an exception to that law, alleging the defendants should be held liable for entrusting a product to another party that then caused harm to a third party.

 

[Bob-in-Florida]

Another thing to consider is state laws. In Connecticut a manufacturer can be partially responsible for damages, and it doesn't matter if the machine was used properly or not. look up Carlos Osorio vs Ryobi.

 

[Jackal]

Hurry, better sue Ford for making the vehicle that a drunk driver used to kill someone..... Better sue the electric company because their electricity burned down a house.... You see my point.

 

[Tommygunn]

They are claiming there should be some sort of safety device which would have prevented Lanza from using the gun.
My guess is that the gun was sold with a safety lock, and Lanza's mother did not use it...therefore Bushmaster did their part. They really can't argue that the gun should have been made so no one could use it, because that would run right into the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Hopefully this case will be thrown out before even reaching trial and the defendant won't have to spend too much in legal fees.

A news report (and, yes we all know HOW ACCURATE they are ... ) I heard claimed the suit was based on the belief that Lanza should not have had (or his parent(s) ) an AR-15, a type of weapon appropriate for soldiers ...but not for civilians. In other words the old canard that "supposed" military weapons ought not be available to civilians -- ignoring, of course that the military's "AR" is select fire while the civie version is only semi automatic.

 

[Schwing]

I agree with almost everything that has been said here. In rational terms, Bushmaster has no liability. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with rational people. The gun grabbers using this tragedy to promote their agenda rarely use ration and it is very hard for the parents to go about this rationally. It is human nature to try and find SOMEONE... ANYONE to blame when something this horrific happens. I believe, for this reason, Bushmaster will be the ones fighting an uphill battle.

I say this because the media will be playing the grieving parent card. They will either settle out of court or be pinned as the evil corporation that doesn't care about grieving parents. Whether they settle, or win or even lose in court, it is going to be very expensive.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Although they mis-spell "Newtown" (excellent journalism!), this article explains how the filing attorneys believe this lawsuit is somehow not covered by the PLCAA.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/12/remington_named_in_lawsuit_fil.html

How exactly is that an exception? That is exactly why the law was passed...

The whole "not suitable for civilians" thing won't fly either. It is a lawfully made and sold gun...again...the PLCAA still applies here.

The first judge this goes before should throw it right out of court.

Connecticut laws don't apply either

A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

 

[buck460XVR]

Grieving families are looking for some kind of closure. They think having someone else found at fault will help with that closure. Greedy lawyers are using this to make money. Kinda what they do, take a tragedy and turn it into profit. I assume what the lawyers and the plaintiffs are hoping is that Bushmaster and their parent company Remington, will settle outta court quickly in hopes of avoiding negative publicity.

 

[ku4hx]

Grieving families are looking for some kind of closure. They think having someone else found at fault will help with that closure. Greedy lawyers are using this to make money. Kinda what they do, take a tragedy and turn it into profit. I assume what the lawyers and the plaintiffs are hoping is that Bushmaster and their parent company Remington, will settle outta court quickly in hopes of avoiding negative publicity.

And the lawyers will get paid regardless of the suit's eventual outcome. The only real losers will be the parent's squandering their money. The longer this drags out, the more the lawyers will get paid.

 

[HOOfan_1]

The "exception" mentioned above, which they may be trying to exploit (who knows as news outlets are reporting myriad reasons the lawyers think this will work) may be

As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term “negligent entrustment” means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

Well, Bushmaster entrusted their firearm to a legal distributor, who in turn entrusted it to a Federally licensed dealer.

So Bushmaster can't be accused of negligent entrustment..only the FFL can, and the lawyers would have to prove that they sold the weapon to Lanza's mother knowing it would be used for illegal purposes...that would be a hard sell.

 

[HOWARD J]

No comment

 

[SleazyRider]

… Well, Bushmaster entrusted their firearm to a legal distributor, who in turn entrusted it to a Federally licensed dealer ...

… who in turn, entrusted their policies to a state law, written by elected officials. And the law was followed---until a certain individual decided to break it.

 

[Bullnettles]

Irrational people cannot see through their emotions, sadly. Mental health needs to be in the lime-light here, not Bushmaster.

 

[Sol]

Why not $ue the $tate becau$e technically the children were under the $tates care?

Why not $ue the £anza$' e$tate? Though they may have already.

Money and publicity.

The amount of money donated to the sandy hook incident wasn't chumps change. I highly doubt the victims families are rooting around for more money. Who knows? Maybe they want more.

Bringing a lawsuit against bushmaster looks to be a politically motivated publicity stunt.

 

[buck460XVR]

And the lawyers will get paid regardless of the suit's eventual outcome. The only real losers will be the parent's squandering their money. The longer this drags out, the more the lawyers will get paid.

Not necessarily. On these types of cases, many times the lawyer/firm operate on a percentage. Last November when I had a kid cross the centerline with his car and take me out, I had probably 20 requests from lawyers willing to take my case on a percentage basis. No money outta my pocket if they lose, but 40% of the settlement if they win. Most only do this when they think there is a good chance of a settlement, or as in this case, a case is so high profile that it gives them national media coverage and plenty of free advertising along with a good chance of a settlement. Most juries award settlements because of pity, regardless of whether there is fault/blame or not. Many times when a company compares the cost of legal expenses plus the loss of revenue due to negative publicity from media coverage, they decide to settle outta court before the publicity gets nasty. This way many times they do not have to admit to fault, nor are they found at fault.

 

[Cee Zee]

Suing is easy...winning is hard because it requires reason and facts. This suit will fail

And defending against a lawsuit takes money and sometimes lots of it. I know an individual who was accused of molesting a young girl who just coincidentally had been told to stay off his property not more than two weeks earlier. The case was a farce and was lost when it was learned the young girl/thief had been seen back on the guy's property after she had been told to stay away. The reason she had been told to stay away was that tools were disappearing when she came around. The case was dropped eventually but not before that guy spent $25,000 in legal fees. Think about the poor SOB's that don't have that kind of cash to put down.

And it takes far more to fight a lawsuit like this one. It's why the law was passed to end liability lawsuits against gun makers. They could drive gun makers out of business and never win a case and that was their strategy. I suspect that the new attitude in Washington (donkeys and elephants sleeping together, the whole 9 yards) the grabbers figure they have a shot at changing the tune despite the law. Heck our government has taken to ignoring pretty much every law they don't like. Why should this one be different? The non-executive order that sold out our nation to the invaders is a perfect example. Votes for the Dems and cheap labor for the other side. Everybody wins - in Washington. Everyone else loses. I hope blacks realize how much this will hurt them in their search for a job because they will lose more jobs to invaders than anyone else. Why would a government that totally ignores that law against illegal invasion be expected to pay attention to a law against lawsuits. Hello - lawyers running the show. How many sales calls do you get a day now? They were stopped until the new Washington - the Imperial Washington - came along. This time they won't stop because voters scream about it. Heck we just gave one side an unprecedented victory at the polls and they spit in our face for our trouble. This country is really starting to stink and I grew up loving this place. I lost a lot of that love over the weekend.

 

[mgmorden]

I don't really question their intentions that much.

Realistically, MOST anti-gun *voters* (not necessarily politicians), right or wrong, truly do consider guns dangerous, and think the public would be safer if they were banned. These people had a tragedy hit about as close to home as it can get. If they weren't anti-gun before, they may be now, simply out a grief-induced bias.

To them, they could well be trying to punish who they see as at least partially responsible for the death of their child.

Again, I don't agree with their premise, and their logic is flawed, but I wouldn't assume right of the bat that it's a heartless money grab. I think it does us a disservice to too readily simplify the mindset of the other side.

 

[herrwalther]

Not relevant. Having guns hasn't stopped hostage taking in the US.

Are you sure about that? There are blogs that find and report stories of defensive gun use. How many instances of defensive gun use could have turned into a hostage situation? Armed robbery of a gas station turned hostage? Home invasion turned hostage? You don't know what could have happened in a worst case what if scenario. It is a logical fallacy to assume that guns haven't stopped hostage situations in the US.

On topic, I don't see this lawsuit getting very far. PLCAA is very clear that victims or families of victims cannot sue manufactures of firearms for criminal or negligent abuse. A wary judge should throw out the lawsuit or if it is allowed to continue, settle out of court before trial.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I was just reading that the negligence and wrongful death lawsuit asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use.

The families are also suing Camfour, a firearm distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales, the store where the Bushmaster rifle was purchased.

I'm surprised they're not suing the ammo manufacturer as well.

Unsuitable for civilian use?

Oh. Okay.

The Bushmaster line of rifles are directly derived from the Colt AR 15 design, yes?

I'll just leave this here.

[resize=720]

[/resize]

 

[Blue Thunder]

Bushmaster should go ahead and say Sue us, and move to have it set for Loser Pays for all the fees associated with this circus.

 

[wally]

Bushmaster would seem to be an easy target, since if I recall correctly they "settled" a lawsuit after one of their guns was used by Malvo the "Beltway Sniper".

 

[HexHead]

I agree with almost everything that has been said here. In rational terms, Bushmaster has no liability. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with rational people. The gun grabbers using this tragedy to promote their agenda rarely use ration and it is very hard for the parents to go about this rationally. It is human nature to try and find SOMEONE... ANYONE to blame when something this horrific happens. I believe, for this reason, Bushmaster will be the ones fighting an uphill battle.

I say this because the media will be playing the grieving parent card. They will either settle out of court or be pinned as the evil corporation that doesn't care about grieving parents. Whether they settle, or win or even lose in court, it is going to be very expensive.

Then how about blaming the crazy little turd that committed the heinous act? No, they only want to blame deep pockets.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Bushmaster would seem to be an easy target, since if I recall correctly they "settled" a lawsuit after one of their guns was used by Malvo the "Beltway Sniper".

They settle before the Protecion of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed...I wouldn't be surprised if that suit helped pass the PLCAA. Not to mention they were under different ownership at the time.

 

[tarosean]

I wouldn't be surprised if that suit helped pass the PLCAA.

Believe it or not, Glock was one of the biggest proponents and had the insurmountable evidence in the efforts. As they could prove guns turned in by LEO later turned up in crimes.