Supreme court allows Remington to be sued by Sandy Hook victims

Status
Not open for further replies.

sequins

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
1,478
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lets-Sandy-Hook-shooting-lawsuit-forward.html

  • The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law that prevented lawsuits against manufactures
  • Decision allows for Connecticut lawsuit put forth by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown school on December 14, 2012
  • Lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public
  • Adam Lanza earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home and killed himself as police arrived at the school
  • The rifle was legally owned by his mother
  • The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could proceed for now, citing an exemption in the federal law

Well this doesn't bode well for Remington, the Bushmaster brand, or AR-15s in general.

 
One wonders what happened to that 2005 law.

I seem to recall the plaintiffs were arguing for some arcane legal reason why it ought not apply, but I don't remember exactly what the reasoning was.

I still have to wonder why Remington should be responsible when Adam Lanza STOLE the rifle from his mother and murdered her. I guess gun makers need to deep a crystal ball to see which particular gun off their assembly lines will be used in a mass killing and crush it.
 
Last edited:
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 you're right. I still don't see it being legitimate though. I don't recall any Remington ads I thought encouraged violence, but then it's been 25 years since I left the now sick state of Connecticut and I can't say what ads are run up there in local publishings. Most of what I've seen are national.
 
The examples I've seen cited are not very compelling to me.

One line of reasoning for the Supremes who might otherwise be sympathetic to Remington is forcing the plaintiffs, and the the CT court, to commit to exactly what speech is being used as a basis for liability.
 
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.

This is the advertisement that caused the problem:

https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bushmaster-man-card/#axzz655B9AVoX

BTW: "Rejected" is a misleading word. In order for a case to be heard four justices must sign on. In this case fewer than four justices desired to hear the appeal.
 
Last edited:
Life is not fair and someone must pay! However as an avid gun owner, I can say that Sandy Hook touched me and continues to haunt. To this day, I cannot begin to understand a mind that can commit that kind of an act - it was way beyond savage and cold. In turn, I know that those minds are out there, that is why I CCW.
 

I find that .... highly questionable, so far as it might be said to encourage violence. I can see how it might in people who are deranged, or perhaps very immature. A lot of people do seem to think a gun adds to ones' "mancard" ... or something.
Did Adam Lanza even see this?
Even if he had .... I think he must have had some other far more serious problems going on in his head than just seeing a silly ad.
 
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.

Does that mean the plaintiff would have to prove that Lanza was directly influenced by Remington's ads?
 
SCOTUS rejects about 98 percent of requests to take cases. This does not mean that they have taken any position on the case. It simply means that they are not going to get involved. Yet.

Remington will probably prevail, SCOTUS knows that, so there is no present need for them to intervene at this stage.
 
Heck, you can sue anybody for anything these days. So this is no surprise. Sounds like some lawyer is just going after a quick settlement. It always comes down to the money. That said, they should be sued for having one of the sleaziest ads I have ever seen. They had to have one very stupid Marketing MGR to approve that disgusting, foolish pathetic ad.
 
SCOTUS rejects about 98 percent of requests to take cases. This does not mean that they have taken any position on the case. It simply means that they are not going to get involved. Yet.

Yep. The time for gnashing of teeth may eventually arrive, but it is not yet here.
 
So does this mean that I can go after budwiser for giving beer to the drunk that killed my dad?
I can’t like your post. But I can say it’s a good point and I’m truly sorry. I’ve personally seen the aftermath (both on scene and in the ER) of DUI.
 
They had to have one very stupid Marketing MGR to approve that disgusting, foolish pathetic ad.
Agreed. That's got to be one of the most asinine bits of advertising I've ever seen. I had no intention of buying a Bushmaster (or any other Remington product, for that matter) anyway, but that add makes me absolutely determined not to.
 
I fail to see how that ad promotes violence.

Puerile and childish? Absolutely. Or maybe it's because I don't long ago proved my own manhood to myself well enough that I don't feel the urge to prove it to anyone else.

In my opinion, anyone who says it does, is sexist and misandrist and should be called out for their bigotry.
 
From what I've read
" Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon."
I've always have, and still do question this marketing. Sooo many ads with professionals (LEO) or "Operators".
 
Does this mean I can sue Ford for when I got T-boned at an intersection by a distracted driver? Utter ridiculousness. So much for Trump padding the courts with pro-2A judges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top