Jump to content
AuEagle

Ct. Court-Remington can be sued

Recommended Posts

Does this mean that if a person gets killed in a car accident that was 100% driver error the family of the deceased can sue the auto maker?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, FrankD said:

Does this mean that if a person gets killed in a car accident that was 100% driver error the family of the deceased can sue the auto maker?

It’s the same fuzzy headed logic isn’t it. Truly mind boggling!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SCOTUS will never uphold this ruling. However, the anti-gunners can bankrupt these companies with legal costs. If this isn’t stopped now; they will all be in trouble. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FrankD said:

Does this mean that if a person gets killed in a car accident that was 100% driver error the family of the deceased can sue the auto maker?

Cars are inanimate objects that need to be started & operated by someone, guns on the other hand........

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The SCOTUS will never uphold this ruling. However, the anti-gunners can bankrupt these companies with legal costs. If this isn’t stopped now; they will all be in trouble. 

As Remington already is bankrupt the strategy is quite clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue the fork and spoon manufacturers over all the obese people that got that way because of their forks and spoons!! It makes the same amount of sense. It is never the person that uses the weapon, but it is always the weapon If it is a gun, if it is a 6,000 lb. pickup truck then there is no foul. I hate to tell them, the little idiot Adam Lanza stole the gun from his mother, so how does Bushmaster become the bad guy?? Put the blame on the murderer not the murder weapon. It is just an inanimate object.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AuEagle said:

Cars are inanimate objects that need to be started & operated by someone, guns on the other hand........

How foolish of me to forget that fact, those guns really have a mind of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go.  These fools will not stop until they control us.   And the only way to fully control us is to take away our guns.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised in the least. It is after all the CT Supreme Court, with judges nominated by the CT Governor, and confirmed by the CT legislature.  If you were waiting for freedom to prevail, you're in a worse spot than Charlie Brown lining up to kick a football being held by Lucy.

 

7 minutes ago, frankmako said:

Here we go.  These fools will not stop until they control us.   And the only way to fully control us is to take away our guns.  

I dunno...they're doing a good job keeping us fat, lazy, economically fragile (ie: how many paychecks can someone miss before it's a cash flow problem), and other measures to induce apathy.  Taking guns may not be as needed in the master plan, after all, they've already gotten this far in where society is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every headline and comment on this is WRONG.   

The court allowed a lawsuit about malicious advertising practices to proceed.   It has nothing to do with liability in the Sandy Hook tragedy.  Yes the plaintiffs are parents of the victims and yes the defendant is the company that manufactured the gun but this case has nothing to do with the actual liability.   This is about the way that Remington marketed their goods.   I, personally, have no problem allowing this suit through and am anxious to see the outcome.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Every headline and comment on this is WRONG.   

The court allowed a lawsuit about malicious advertising practices to proceed.   It has nothing to do with liability in the Sandy Hook tragedy.  Yes the plaintiffs are parents of the victims and yes the defendant is the company that manufactured the gun but this case has nothing to do with the actual liability.   This is about the way that Remington marketed their goods.   I, personally, have no problem allowing this suit through and am anxious to see the outcome.  

All of us are wrong?

Quote

 

The families allege that Remington’s hyper-militaristic portrayal of the XM15 runs afoul of a Connecticut law that prohibits companies from marketing their products in unsafe and unscrupulous ways. That law is called the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and it’s a run-of-the-mill consumer protection statute that exists in some form in every state.

The Connecticut Supreme Court thinks that this question — whether Remington’s marketing violated CUTPA — should go to a jury. If a jury finds that the gunmakers unscrupulously advertised a dangerous product, the gunmakers could be held liable for the deaths at Sandy Hook

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/03/sandy-hook-lawsuit-remington-gun-industry/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

All of us are wrong?

 

 

 

They will have a hard time connecting the two since the shooter illegally acquired the gun.   You cannot use advertising to show liability when the gun in question was acquired through illegal means and of opportunity, not choice.  

Edited by Capbyrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

They will have a hard time connecting the two since the shooter illegally acquired the gun.   

No one knows that. He killed his Mother and took the gun from the safe. Whether or not he had been given access to it is not known. Without clear cut evidence; common sense would say he had access to the gun.

However, my comment was simply because you are saying we are all wrong and this has nothing to do with liability for Sandy Hook. I believe you are mistaken That’s certainly what they are asking for. As I said above; I don’t think the SCOTUS will allow this. But you never know; they may not even hear it.

If the lawsuit goes forward and they win; it will be punitive damages. A jury can allow the highest limits of liability allowed by the state. My guess is that would break Remington. Who is next, Glock, Barrett, S&W??

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Fisher
Forbes Staff
I cover finance, the law, and how the two interact. A Connecticut judge has thrown out a closely watched lawsuit against Remington Outdoor over the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, saying the plaintiffs failed to maneuver around a federal law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers over crimes committed with their products.
 
In a 54-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ticked through the various ways plaintiff lawyers tried to make a case against Remington, which made the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to kill 26 children and teachers on Dec. 14, 2012. All failed to fit the exceptions Congress wrote into the law, including one for "negligent entrustment," or knowingly transferring a weapon to someone who will use it to commit a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chances R said:
Daniel Fisher
Forbes Staff
I cover finance, the law, and how the two interact. A Connecticut judge has thrown out a closely watched lawsuit against Remington Outdoor over the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, saying the plaintiffs failed to maneuver around a federal law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers over crimes committed with their products.
 
In a 54-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ticked through the various ways plaintiff lawyers tried to make a case against Remington, which made the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to kill 26 children and teachers on Dec. 14, 2012. All failed to fit the exceptions Congress wrote into the law, including one for "negligent entrustment," or knowingly transferring a weapon to someone who will use it to commit a crime.

I believe this article & ruling is from 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines