CT Court rules Remington can be sued for wrongful marketing from Sandy Hook families

foleyt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Connecticut-Supreme-Court-to-Issue-Ruling-in-Sandy-Hook-Families-Lawsuit-507140061.html

Quote:

Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes.

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington glorified the weapon in marketing it to young people.

Remington has denied wrongdoing and previously insisted it can't be sued under the federal law.

The majority of the high court agreed with most of the lower court's ruling and dismissed most of the lawsuit's allegations, but allowed a wrongful marketing claim to proceed.

"The regulation of advertising that threatens the public's health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states' police powers," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.

Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the state Supreme Court during arguments in November 2017 the Bushmaster rifle and other AR-15-style rifles were designed as military killing machines and should never have been sold to the public.

"The families' goal has always been to shed light on Remington's calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans' safety," Koskoff said Thursday. "Today's decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal."


Hard to imagine this will work out but I suppose they really just want access to Remington's internal emails
astros4545
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If this isn't 9-0 USSC decision
Scary
cochrum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I hope they go after hollywood movies and video games too because those are likely way more influential than advertisements. If not than they are hypocrites.
aTm2004
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So we can now sue alcohol and auto manufactures if a loved one is killed by a DD? Why not throw in the state for building the roads?
Teflon John
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The maker of the gun can be sued? JFC. Can parents now sue a knife company if their depressed teenager commits suicide by cutting themselves?
zoneag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They know they can't repeal the 2nd Amendment, so this is where the battle will be fought. Through activist court rulings, onerous taxes on guns and ammo, targeting financial companies that do business with the industry. It won't stop, and the simple fact everyone should be aware of is that as early as January 2021 gun rights could be in real danger. If the dems get the White House and Senate I would expect a full assault on gun rights.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teflon John said:

The maker of the gun can be sued? JFC. All the gun did was fire bullets when a psycho was pulling the trigger. Can parents now sue a knife company if their depressed teenager commits suicide by cutting themselves?

If they're real smart they'll sue Bayer for the teen using asprin as a blood thinner.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?
rocky the dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I hope they go after hollywood movies and video games too because those are likely way more influential than advertisements. If not than they are hypocrites.
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So victims of drunk drivers can sue the alcohol companies?
What a bunch of crock.
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?

Because obtuse idiots don't see the difference between negligent product production and taking a working product and using it as a weapon on innocents. Quite frankly the gun did not fail to work and it shot as intended. There was no negligence or anything the the manufacturer's side. If so we should all sue the car maker the next time we're in an accident or get a ticket.
Gunny456
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You are 100% correct. We are a few votes away from seeing a dramatic change in life. Really scary.
No longer can we laugh and say "they never can do that".
CDUB98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
such bull****
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They do realize the manufacturer likely did not do their own advertising.

TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?


Which special exemptions?
AstroAg17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
deddog said:

So victims of drunk drivers can sue the alcohol companies?
What a bunch of crock.

Dont the alcohol companies basically acknowledge potential liability when they put the phrase "please drink responsibly" in everything? To me that seems like a hedge against lawsuits.
daggertx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?


Vaccine manufacturers have exemptions
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasRebel said:

Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?


Which special exemptions?


The one that is the subject of the thread.


All the comparison to alcohol fail.

There is a federal statute to prevent this kind of lawsuit. Haven't read the decision, but based on story this is bad ruling

The nexus between marketing and these deaths is far too spurious to support a claim
hunter2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

deddog said:

So victims of drunk drivers can sue the alcohol companies?
What a bunch of crock.

Dont the alcohol companies basically acknowledge potential liability when they put the phrase "please drink responsibly" in everything? To me that seems like a hedge against lawsuits.

So Remington should just say, "please shoot responsibly" and they've effectively washed their hands of it?
Cassius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?

That's a baseless assertion.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?
Because liberals like you want us to be stripped of our constitutional rights no matter how dishonestly you have to go about it.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If I am reading that correctly, it is only their marketing strategy that will be put on trial, barring appeal.

SMH over whatever "wrongful marketing" actually constitutes but commercial speech is subject to regulation (why we don't see cigarette ads on TV, for instance) but still not sure how they can link that to Lanza's actions.
Cow Hop Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexasRebel said:

They do realize the manufacturer likely did not do their own advertising.


I have never seen a Remington ad. Or a Walther. Or a S&W. Or a Kimber... Or....
AstroAg17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hunter2012 said:


So Remington should just say, "please shoot responsibly" and they've effectively washed their hands of it?
I guess, at least as much as the alcohol companies have.
grizzo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can't say I've ever seen a Remington ad. Maybe in an outdoors magazine?
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

TexasRebel said:

Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?


Which special exemptions?


The one that is the subject of the thread.


All the comparison to alcohol fail.

There is a federal statute to prevent this kind of lawsuit. Haven't read the decision, but based on story this is bad ruling

The nexus between marketing and these deaths is far too spurious to support a claim


There is no special exemption.
If a product does what it is designed to do without a defect causing harm to the public a lawsuit should be dismissed as frivolous.

In any industry:
Cars
Hammers
Lipstick
Tampons
Firearms
Paper
Railroad
Air travel
Knives
Alcohol
Food
Lawn care
Construction
Et. Cetera
AG 2000'
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What marketing are they talking about?

Field and Stream magazine? GI Joe toys?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
15 U.S. Code 7902 - Prohibition on bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court


Please point me to the relevant statute that covers lawn care lipstick or knives.


Did you even read the OP?
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That link doesnt say wjat you think it does. Bottom line, like everything, plaintiffs and juries are the problem. It is completely impossible for an advertising campaign to cause actionable gun torts. As such the lawsuit can never be won. Therefore, it is frivolous. All it takes is any jury that is human. Or a judge that is human should dismiss that suit and sanction the plaintiff under its existing authority.

Unfortunately, we've worked hard for decades to create voters and jurors, and judges, who are subhuman.

You cant legislate around their idiocy.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?
Because liberals like you want us to be stripped of our constitutional rights no matter how dishonestly you have to go about it.
The ability of someone to take them to court does nothing to your right to bear arms. And if they have a strong defense, let them defend themselves in court.

I'm not a liberal and I don't particularly think they should be held liable. However, I just think it's political that they have exemptions that others don't.
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

Why should they have special exemptions that other industries don't?


If a knife designed primarily for legal self defense is used illegally by a psychopath to murder someone, but the knife is otherwise functionally perfect (ie. There is no design or manufacturing flaws/negligence). Should the maker of that 100% legal to own device be civily liable for the murder? That would change product liability across the board and a whole new era of junk tort lawsuits. To say this is not a targeted attack to restrict gun rights is disingenuous at best.
If you're a law abiding citizen why do you desire others to determine what you can and can't own as long as you intend to follow the law? Just because your neighbor is a low life that uses a gun illegally doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to buy to the same weapon. There's already laws against assault and murder. There are 300 million guns already here and they're not going anywhere. You never want to see a widespread weapons black market here. That'll be drug war 2.0. I'll never understand the willingness of liberals to give up their own personal freedoms.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbr said:

That link doesnt say wjat you think it does. Bottom line, like everything, plaintiffs and juries are the problem. It is completely impossible for an advertising campaign to cause actionable gun torts. As such the lawsuit can never be won. Therefore, it is frivolous. All it takes is any jury that is human. Or a judge that is human should dismiss that suit and sanction the plaintiff under its existing authority.

Unfortunately, we've worked hard for decades to create voters and jurors, and judges, who are subhuman.

You cant legislate around their idiocy.


What link?

There's a federal statute to stop these lawsuits. That can't be disputed.

I support that law

Tom Hagen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The plaintiffs include a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the massacre. They argue the AR-15-style rifle used by shooter Adam Lanza is too dangerous for the public...

The lawyers in this case should be executed.
cevans_40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So many lawyers (who then become judges) are the absolute dregs of society
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

cbr said:

That link doesnt say wjat you think it does. Bottom line, like everything, plaintiffs and juries are the problem. It is completely impossible for an advertising campaign to cause actionable gun torts. As such the lawsuit can never be won. Therefore, it is frivolous. All it takes is any jury that is human. Or a judge that is human should dismiss that suit and sanction the plaintiff under its existing authority.

Unfortunately, we've worked hard for decades to create voters and jurors, and judges, who are subhuman.

You cant legislate around their idiocy.


What link?

There's a federal statute to stop these lawsuits. That can't be disputed.

I support that law




If somebody is raped because of the shade of their lipstick, and the advertising agency contracted by the manufacturer claimed that shade to be "irresistibly sexy". Who should get sued?

Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.