https://abcnews.go.com/US/sand...me/story?id=82881639


Why I don’t invest in gun makers.


Mike

Darn it. How'd they still suck $70M out of a bankrupt company?

Newtown was the site of Fairfield Hills Hospital, a mental institution closed under a Republican governor to save the state a little money.
Adam Lanza should have been across town living in that facility, not in town with access to weapons.
The victims should be suing the state of Connecticut, not Remington. The governor went to jail for financial mischief, no point suing him...

ski,

It's about insurance and they lost their nerve. Should never have happened in my opinion. When a company goes into bankruptcy there is a stay on all litigation. The stay is generally only lifted if the plaintiffs agree to accept the insurance proceeds.

wonder what insurance limits they had my guess is the lawyers will get a small drop ou of the turnip and the people get zero but this sets a dangerous precedent even though the stste of conneticut has the mentality of a rabid rottweiler

You guys have completely missed the REAL outcome:

allows the families to make public thousands of pages of “internal company documents that prove Remington’s wrongdoing,”

THAT is the real outcome! This is not the end.
Oh, by the way, 20 first graders were killed.

"True justice would be our 15-year-old healthy and standing next to us right now. But Ben will never be 15. He will be 6 forever."

"Our loss is irreversible, and in that sense this outcome is neither redemptive nor restorative. One moment we had this dazzling, energetic 6-year-old little boy, and the next all we had left were echoes of the past, photographs of a lost boy who will never grow older, calendars marking a horrifying new anniversary, a lonely grave, and pieces of Noah's life stored in a backpack and boxes."
And you are concerned that this is a dangerous precedent!
Peter

What has Remington got to do with the killings??

Do car makers pay for car accidents??

quote:

What has Remington got to do with the killings??

Well Saeed, we will find out when the plaintiffs start releasing the private Remington documents that are part of the agreement.
Sorry you have to wait, but it probably won't change your mind anyway. Some people think that there might be a difference between firearms and automobiles, but, who knows? I do suspect that the attorneys involved were probably not motivated by feelings of altruism. Maybe they were just incompetent?
Peter.

This is a dangerous precedent for a lot of reasons. There is no allegation that the firearm in question malfunctioned or did not perform as intended. So how is the manufacturer in any way liable?

Are you now going to hold a car manufacturer liable for a drunk driving accident? Or the manufacturer of the whiskey the drunk driver consumed?

Silly in my opinion. What ever happened to the law and personal choice and responsibility?

I agree that it is a very dangerous precedent to set. A few years ago I followed a situation on the news about a Canadian woman who was from Germany + a jew + escaped when a child. Her aunt's portrait was stolen by the nazis + it eventually turned up in an Austrian art gallery. She fought for ownership + eventually won, (this was made into amovie with Hellen Mirren called "The Woman In Gold"), but it put into work the idea of the precedent about who actually has rights to items seized in war. example, the excavation of Troy in the early 1900s then shipped to Germany, then taken by the soviets in the fall of Berlin. So who owns it? Turkey, Germany, or Russia? There is a correlation there + yes it can set a bad precedent + cost a lot of money that in the final analysis will only benefit the law firms + seriously muddy the water.

Lavaca
My opinion is like minded, this opened the door so many ways that we all know will be used in other areas to create new crazy laws and whatever else.
Its down right frightening how this turned out.

Do you guys have ANY clue about this case?

"The families’ suit, filed in 2015, accused Remington of violating a Connecticut law against deceptive trade practices by intentionally marketing its weapons to young, unstable males. The company’s ads touted the use of Remington rifles in military combat and presented them as badges of masculinity. “Consider Your Man Card Reissued,” went the tagline in one ad."

"Remington — which made the Bushmaster XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle used in the shooting — will allow the families to make public thousands of internal marketing documents handed over by the company as part of discovery. But the gunmaker will no longer have to comply with a February 17 deadline for releasing additional documents that could have shed further light on its practices. "
Peter

Well then, there will probably be a suit against the Madison Avenue boys as well because their advertisements worked as they were paid to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Do you guys have ANY clue about this case?

"The families’ suit, filed in 2015, accused Remington of violating a Connecticut law against deceptive trade practices by intentionally marketing its weapons to young, unstable males. The company’s ads touted the use of Remington rifles in military combat and presented them as badges of masculinity. “Consider Your Man Card Reissued,” went the tagline in one ad."


Peter

Ever see a Dodge Hellcat or Redeye Commercial? What if a teen driver takes out Dad's Hellcat to flash his mancard, dials up that 707 HP and loses control into a school bus stop full of first graders?

Is FCA liable?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

https://youtu.be/RdFng9W_tek

Frostbite
Exactly....

How about if condom companies were held responsible for rape victims in cases a condom was used.
The list goes on and on.

I am just saying this is a terrible loss.

Remington in no way marketed and inanimate object for the use it was used by a mentally unstable person. If you have to blame anything blame it on violent video games or poor parenting.

The head line is really misleading.

Remington is no more they did not settle anything.

It was the 4 insurance companies that settled.

Huge difference.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
The head line is really misleading.

Remington is no more they did not settle anything.

It was the 4 insurance companies that settled.

Huge difference.

When I worked in the Indian Health Service system we were all covered against malpractice by the Federal Tort Claims Act. The problem is they settle even frivolous cases at an extremely high percentage. It's cost effective. So once they settle the claim the Nurse or Physician has a record of losing a malpractice case for the rest of their career. So I disagree with you. Remington settled this and its the same as pleading no contest an admission of guilt.

Peter,

What I am aware of is that greedy, inventive plaintiffs' lawyers will always come up with a new theory about what is and what is not acceptable marketing. Before they are done, you won't be able to buy a single product that could possibly injure someone even if misused by some fool.

And remember what they said about something that's "foolproof". Nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently talented fool. And there are a lot of them out there.

This wasn't a product liability case. Gun makers have immunity for that. The allegations relate to the manner in which Remington/Bushmaster marketed the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is a dangerous precedent for a lot of reasons. There is no allegation that the firearm in question malfunctioned or did not perform as intended. So how is the manufacturer in any way liable?

Are you now going to hold a car manufacturer liable for a drunk driving accident? Or the manufacturer of the whiskey the drunk driver consumed?

Silly in my opinion. What ever happened to the law and personal choice and responsibility?

Insurance company lawyer talking. Maybe Remington should have tried the case if it was such bullshit?

Oh, wait. I bet your against jury trials too. It's that whole bothersome 7th Amendment thing.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Peter,

What I am aware of is that greedy, inventive plaintiffs' lawyers will always come up with a new theory about what is and what is not acceptable marketing. Before they are done, you won't be able to buy a single product that could possibly injure someone even if misused by some fool.

And remember what they said about something that's "foolproof". Nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently talented fool. And there are a lot of them out there.

Posted from an Insurance lawyer; I rest my case.

Mitchell,

I understand the theory of the plaintiffs' case and its bullshit. And yes, I believe they should have tried it.

But, yes, the stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me. Just look at the state of the union speech.

What happened in the State of the Union speech? The only part I caught was where Marjorie Greene and Lauren Boebert were making asses of themselves and Marco Rubio was too busy to attend.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Insurance company lawyer talking. Maybe Remington should have tried the case if it was such bullshit?

Oh, wait. I bet your against jury trials too. It's that whole bothersome 7th Amendment thing.

[QUOTE]

I think they should have tried the case, but it's so much more expensive. And I think we're the only country in the developed world where plaintiffs aren't held accountable for defendant's legal fees when they bring and lose a poor/frivolous suit.

Well, for my opinion, I am against jury trial for the very selfish reason that I have had to serve on 5 of them + managed to get out of 2 more. Being self employed, it trashed my business + wasted my time. That being said, I know the importance of a trial jury by our peers, but only if they are TRULY our peers, not just another citizen. I.E., if it was a case concerning reloading/ gun issues, then the jury should all be reloaders/ shooters, etc.

Hey, great idea Norman! So, the people on trial for the January 6 "legitimate political discourse" should ask for only members of the RNC on their jury. And, people accused of "drive by's" should insist on bangers from the 'hood, who, after all, are "TRULY" their peers!
Peter