Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Remington settles with Sandy Hook families for $73 Million


Recommended Posts

The camel finally managed to get its nose under the tent. Look forward to a flood of new lawsuits from the anti-gunners saying that gun manufacturers should be held liable for, well, being gun manufacturers.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sandy-hook-families-settle-with-gun-maker-in-historic-first/ar-AATSWvw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s next? Car companies, knife manufacturers, chain saw companies?? Where does it end??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we sue cities that have lead water pipes delivering drinking water to their residents that vote and impact others due to their mental incapacitation? 
 

Oh wait… this would be a reason for them to sue and claim victim status. Never mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next thing coming.... Rosie O'Donnell suing Oneida flatware, cuz forks made her fat.
These are truly weapons of m(ass) destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Can we sue cities that have lead water pipes delivering drinking water to their residents that vote and impact others due to their mental incapacitation? 
 

Oh wait… this would be a reason for them to sue and claim victim status. Never mind!


 Or the Navies Red Hill fuel storage for Pearl Harbor leaked into Islands water source 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/13/red-hill-fuel-water-contamination-activism/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Since Remington went BK, how realistic is it to expect payment? 

OLG 

This was my theory of why they mismanaged (took the money and ran) and put the company into bankruptcy. Now they can settle and not pay a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PowerRiverCowboy said:

Fat food for obesity :)

If the settlement establishes precedent, and I don't think it does, it would be the knife, fork, and spoon manufacturers who were liable. Specifically, how they market the very tools of obesity.

 

Obesity is a leading cause of death in the USA, 280,000 die each year directly from it, and 10 times that many die "with it" from something associated with the condition (heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers).

 

I looked deeper into this settlement offer. The settlement is offered by two of Remington's insurers. The offer is not from Remington as such.

 

Should the trial go forward, the question under litigation is if Remingtons marketing practices contributed to the tragic shooting committed by a mentally ill individual. He forced his mom to open the safe containing the rifle before killing her. Apparently not under consideration in the suit is any marketing is irrelevant considering how he chose the gun.

 

Should the trial go forward, discovery by the plaintiffs will include all of Remington's marketing practices. The settlement puts an end to this suit. The suit is likely barred under both Connecticut state law and Federal law. But before the courts can make a determination as to liability at trial, Remington has to go through discovery.

 

If the plaintiffs accept the offer from the two insurance companies, Remington marketing practices will not be entered into a court trial record, for a trial that will likely result in Remington not having liability under at least Federal law. I also assume the two insurance companies are footing the cost of Remington's legal defense.

 

I favor it as long as Remington does not admit guilt under some weird theory of culpability. For someone who killed in order to get the nearest gun, independent of any Remington marketing he was exposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marketing is the vulnerable point. The Lawful Commerce in Arms act is good, but leaves certain things open.

 

Gun manufacturers will do well to consider how their ads are deliberately targeted to certain fantasists. I recall one ad a few months back, I don't remember whose it was, that played straight into "voluntary border enforcers".  Skating on thin ice, I thought. 

 

Money is all it's about to manufacturers, and they advertise, calculate their risk, and buy insurance, accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell ? 

I should be able to Sue GM for the drunk driver who killed my Mother :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on this, it is all about the money. Remington that was sued is no longer a company, and the insurance companies are still on the hook for the lawsuit. When they ran the numbers, offering a settlement is cheaper in the long run as opposed to trying to fight the battle. 

 

When I injured my back years ago at work, the company denied my work comp claim and I had to sue the company. If I would have had a better lawyer, I would have came out on top but my lawyer kept trying to get me to take the lo-ball offers the company made and would not listen to me. At the end of the companies fiscal year, they finally made an offer that was still on the low side and had bankrupted me and I took it so I could move on. I still lost almost everything ( sold almost all my guns, had to work for the company at minimum wage to pursue the lawsuit, and was spending more in gas to   work than I made.) The company pushed to get the best outcome  for them and they won the battle. 3 or 4 years later the company went bankrupt and closed so karma got them in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bgavin said:

Next thing coming.... Rosie O'Donnell suing Oneida flatware, cuz forks made her fat.
These are truly weapons of m(ass) destruction.

What, her thighs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

 

 ...... I believe that's male cow droppings ......   :blink:

iI was going to say that there’s no such thing as a male cow.But then I thought, “Well…maybe these days ………..”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a critical synopsis of the subject Settlement.  It really only holds the manufacturer liable for irresponsible promotion and advertising as related directly to the sale of this particular gun; not necessarily for manufacture of the gun used in the crime.  

 

The plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturers adds and display of that exact model gun in a violent video game constituted focused promotion to young males, and particularly to young males with other life issues.   The Court agreed with the settlement and the SCOTUS is refusing to hear any appeals. 

 

I'm sure the Antigun folks will try to enlarge the scope of the decision to include manufacture;  just as the tobacco lawsuits progressed from child-focused advertising to packaging, and finally to manufacture and sale.  No doubt this is headed there--sadly.   

 

But if I look at just the promotion issue objectively, I do have to say the gun manufacturers appear to be marketing to a tough, no- nonsense, "make my day" kind of male gun owner image.  Most of us, by far, are nowhere near that general demeanor.  Sure we will stand our ground and insist on the right to do so, but we don't walk around looking the part.  Most firearm owners are steady, careful, stable people with no vendetta or hangup.  

 

Just browsing through the Dillon Blue Book Catalog, what do you see? it is filled with adds featuring either young, pretty ladies in scant clothing, or hard-as-nails looking adult males made up to appear like Sandanistas or mercenary terrorists, holding extremely military looking firearms.  Nowhere do ads depict the whole array of aesthetic looking wood stocked sporting guns.  

 

I don't really have much to say about the young ladies (except that I like looking at them), but I do think the Dillon ads and ads almost everywhere else throughout the firearm and ammunition industry have shown a disparate focus on scary male imagery and on the black rifles that the industry knows are scary to many.  That fear is a reality now, whether it is legitimate or not.  It is a now a well established phobia, thanks mostly to Hollywood, the video game industry, the media, antigun politicians, and advertising. 

 JMHO, they basically asked for this kind of lawsuit, and now it will proliferate to damage all of us.

 

Alternatively,  I think the gun and shooting industry could do itself a favor in the long haul by depicting themselves with decent, non-scary, responsible looking adult men and women carrying guns carefully for protection,  ranchers, competition shooters,  business men carrying protection, maybe even family men with their young sons or daughters enjoying  shooting recreation.  But by choosing to look hard and scary to the huge and growing number of folks who either don't understand or  misunderstand guns and shooting, I strongly believe our industry is fostering  its own future over-regulation. 

 

I spend a lot of days working on maintenance and match set-ups at our CAS range.  All day long I watch other shooters going to and coming from the public ranges operated by our umbrella club.   I see a lot of very un-scary looking families, couples, womens' groups, retired men and women, grandfather's with grandkids in tow, and just generally respectable people.  But I also see a few scarier looking people who almost appear to be impersonating what they see in movies, video games and advertising.  I tend to keep one eye on them. because experience has taught me that they are often not safe, well trained gun handlers. 

 

Given the choice, I would much prefer our passion for shooting to be portrayed as respectable, and see it attract respectable people.  But the adds tend to lean the other way, or to wherever they perceive a market share.  If we don't clean up our own act, I fear somebody else will, and we won't like the outcome.

.

Again, JMHO.  Many here may disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Got to love the Left West.  Every morning I give thanks that I don't live there.  I wonder if Kool Aid Kid is taken.  We could have a vote and elect someone.  Read the law. 

 

I believe this was the East....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

The lengthy comments in support of the decision on the other hand...

 

Once the State supreme court back there declined to dismiss the case, the result was inevitable. No way the insurance companies could have taken this to trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rip Snorter said:

Got to love the Left West.  Every morning I give thanks that I don't live there.  I wonder if Kool Aid Kid is taken.  We could have a vote and elect someone.  Read the law. 

The last two sentences are incomprehensible.  What was it you were trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is even worse than you think, it means both sides are gonna be causing some serious harm to this country. This is the same thing as the law in TX giving people standing to sue when they never should be able to, it's zealots deciding the end justifies the means and bending the law to suit their ideology. If you can see how bad the other side is but don't see anything wrong with your side, then you're part of the problem and it's gonna turn into a very big problem. This will not end well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is a statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

 

“The decision to settle in the Soto v. Bushmaster case was not made by a member of the firearms industry. The settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the various insurance carriers that held policies with Remington Outdoor Company (ROC), which effectively no longer exists.

As part of bankruptcy court proceedings, the assets of ROC were sold at auction in September of 2020. Remington Outdoor Company, which owned the Bushmaster brand, effectively ceased to exist as a going concern. The lawsuit, however, continued against the estate of the Remington Outdoor Company, essentially ROCs insurers and their insurance policies in effect at the time.

The settlement also does not alter the fundamental facts of the case. The plaintiffs never produced any evidence that Bushmaster advertising had any bearing or influence over Nancy Lanzas decision to legally purchase a Bushmaster rifle, nor on the decision of murderer Adam Lanza to steal that rifle, kill his mother in her sleep, and go on to commit the rest of his horrendous crimes. We renew our sincere sympathy for the victims of this unspeakable tragedy and all victims of violence committed through the misusing of any firearm. But the fact remains that modern sporting rifles are the most popular rifle in America with over 20 million sold to law abiding Americans and rifles, of any kind, are exceedingly rarely used in crime.

The Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in its Soto v. Bushmaster (4-3) opinion, [T]the plaintiffs allege that the defendantswrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.” NSSF believes the Court incorrectly allowed this one claim to go forward to discover. We remain confident ROC would have prevailed if this case had it proceeded to trial.

Finally, this settlement orchestrated by insurance companies has no impact on the strength and efficacy of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which remains the law of the land. PLCAA will continue to block baseless lawsuits that attempt to blame lawful industry companies for the criminal acts of third parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The odd thing to me is even the news retracted the statement about a rifle being used. Then all 3 networks did. I met a teacher from the school a year later while doing my job and she said the same thing and that it was not Lanza who came into her room. It was a large older man in a camo jacket---the same guy we saw on the news just once! Even the State cops called it a drill! Here's a video from the news back then.

https://youtu.be/TNKPLoOBaY0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

Should the trial go forward, the question under litigation is if Remingtons marketing practices contributed to the tragic shooting committed by a mentally ill individual. He forced his mom to open the safe containing the rifle before killing her. Apparently not under consideration in the suit is any marketing is irrelevant considering how he chose the gun.

As a CT resident, this happened about 45 minutes from where I live and I read a lot of the local news.

 

The little monster shot his mother in the head with a .22 LR rifle while she was asleep.  It was never determined if he had access to the gun safe on his own or if he took the keys/combination after her death.

 

I don't believe he was ever diagnosed as mentally ill, although he probably was.  He was diagnosed as being autistic which is a neurodevelopmental disorders, not a mental health issue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many lawyers would be involved, if this was not a contingency based case.
Lawyers love to feast on deep pockets as contingency cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.