Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic first

LegitDuner

LegitDuner

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
2,111
Not sure what kind of precedents this sets or if anybody knows the details but something doesn't seem right about this. If I were to take this at face value I would think that we can sue knife making companies, slingshot making companies, baseball bat companies etc.

What's the real story on this? I know some of you guys are neck deep in firearm laws and court cases.

"" "Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held liable" 

Open SmartNews and read "Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic first" here: https://share.smartnews.com/LgSUd

To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/nzVCm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
Isaiah 5:20 New American Standard Bible
 
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;

Who [a]substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;




Who [b]substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Click to expand...






 
As much as i do not agree with this case, by Remington settling out of court does not set a precedent for future cases...I could be wrong but that is my understanding...had it gone to trial and there was a ruling against Remington then I think the flood gates open and all hell breaks loose....those that know the law better please chime in and educate all of us. 

 
Not a lot of details so far on this, but Remington decided to settle out of court.  I don't think it went to trail.  On top of this Remington is in bankruptcy, so their hands might have been tied.  Not sure if this lawsuit forced Bankruptcy or it was coming.  I hope Remington wasn't the one that sent precedent.

 
Meter Tech said:
As much as i do not agree with this case, by Remington settling out of court does not set a precedent for future cases...I could be wrong but that is my understanding...had it gone to trial and there was a ruling against Remington then I think the flood gates open and all hell breaks loose....those that know the law better please chime in and educate all of us. 
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums up what is going on with this case.   Remington does not want to set legal precedent by going to jury trial and having a jury find against them.  There has been no finding of liability by a court so it should not open the flood gates of lawsuits.  

 
Sand Shark said:
That pretty much sums up what is going on with this case.   Remington does not want to set legal precedent by going to jury trial and having a jury find against them.  There has been no finding of liability by a court so it should not open the flood gates of lawsuits.  
Click to expand...
As well, it was the insurance companies that settled the lawsuit.  And the lawsuit was based on Marketing practices and specific ads that Remington ran.  And for the most part, most of Remington has been sold off as well since the Bankruptcy.

 
Meter Tech said:
As much as i do not agree with this case, by Remington settling out of court does not set a precedent for future cases...I could be wrong but that is my understanding...had it gone to trial and there was a ruling against Remington then I think the flood gates open and all hell breaks loose....those that know the law better please chime in and educate all of us. 
Click to expand...
Yes, it does set a precedent. By giving them any money at all, it just encourages every other person with the liberal victim mentality to try the same thing, knowing they will get a big payout from gun makers ( more accurately their insurance company) in future lawsuits, regardless of a total lack of merit or legal standing. I predict we'll start seeing more of these nuisance lawsuits since people see it as free money. Especially anti-gun libtards. Get ready to see gun prices go up even higher as the insurance companies jck up the premiums sky high and the gun mfrs pass the costs on to us.

 
Meter Tech said:
As much as i do not agree with this case, by Remington settling out of court does not set a precedent for future cases...I could be wrong but that is my understanding...had it gone to trial and there was a ruling against Remington then I think the flood gates open and all hell breaks loose....those that know the law better please chime in and educate all of us. 
Click to expand...
The claimants were after money, and they got it without even going to trial. It's the new version of a slot machine. But instead of gambling, it's a guaranteed payout. Remington's motive may have been to minimize the legal expense of a trial, but it looks to me like they just threw a bunch of blood in the water which will attract more money hungry sharks. They don't care if Remington accepts no liability, this will be the new ambulance chasing slip and fall lawsuit, for much higher stakes.

If this keeps up, at the very least we'll see huge price increases in guns, if not gun makers quitting or getting forced out of business due to ridiculous liability insurance expense. 

 
The more I read and hear about Remington, the more I think a liberal/anti-gunner must have bought them out.

Remington helped fuel the ammo shortage.  Remington has been the subject of these suits.  But didn't Remington move to the South?  Was this a strategic move?

A willful settlement is a huge loss to me.  This is the type of sh*t that will make me look for other products and such instead of Remington.  Remington will definitely be a last resort for my wants/needs from now on.

 
IMO and being a business owner thats been sued for BS I am not liable for..... Settling without fault for $$$ paid to the so called victim was cheaper than fighting for what is right. To win the argument was going to cost hundreds of thousands to prove innocence.  It's the business of law and im not in that business.

Carry on.

:crackhead:

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
The claimants were after money, and they got it without even going to trial. It's the new version of a slot machine. But instead of gambling, it's a guaranteed payout. Remington's motive may have been to minimize the legal expense of a trial, but it looks to me like they just threw a bunch of blood in the water which will attract more money hungry sharks. They don't care if Remington accepts no liability, this will be the new ambulance chasing slip and fall lawsuit, for much higher stakes.

If this keeps up, at the very least we'll see huge price increases in guns, if not gun makers quitting or getting forced out of business due to ridiculous liability insurance expense. 
Click to expand...
You have to look at how they even were able to bring the lawsuit to begin with.  As Cookie stated it was based on marketing ads and marketing practices for a specific gun.   These were sophisticated attorney's at the helm of the lawsuit, not your ambulance chasers.  

Would you want to take a case to trial that involves the killing of children in which your product was used?   Remington is not going to get much sympathy from a jury. 

I do not think it will open the flood gates.  There are laws that product gun manufactures from being held liable when criminals use there products for crimes.  

 
Msnbc's been talking how this is punching holes into a federal law against suing gun makers called flacca or something. They're certainly acting like this is setting a precedent to go after and sue all gun makers. 

Give an inch take a mile

 
Mac said:
The more I read and hear about Remington, the more I think a liberal/anti-gunner must have bought them out.

Remington helped fuel the ammo shortage.  Remington has been the subject of these suits.  But didn't Remington move to the South?  Was this a strategic move?

A willful settlement is a huge loss to me.  This is the type of sh*t that will make me look for other products and such instead of Remington.  Remington will definitely be a last resort for my wants/needs from now on.
Click to expand...
Remington was divided up by seven different companies during their bankruptcy. 

 
Kraut_n_Rice said:
Remington was divided up by seven different companies during their bankruptcy. 
Click to expand...
That is another layer of this for sure, you have 4 insurance companies that represented Remington.............then the company goes into Bankruptcy during the lawsuit.  It makes you wonder who finally says, "let's settle and make this go away".  For the most part I think Remington (The 7 companies) had moved one and wanted a fresh start.  

An the end of the day, the lawyers made a killing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully a vehicle manufacturer will be sued for that dude that mowed those folks down in Waukesha Wisconsin, get the automobile lobby involved in this shiz…

 
LegitDuner said:
Not sure what kind of precedents this sets or if anybody knows the details but something doesn't seem right about this. If I were to take this at face value I would think that we can sue knife making companies, slingshot making companies, baseball bat companies etc.

What's the real story on this? I know some of you guys are neck deep in firearm laws and court cases.

"" "Remington Arms agreed Tuesday to settle liability claims from the families of five adults and four children killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to a new court filing, marking the first time a gun manufacturer has been held liable" 

Open SmartNews and read "Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker in historic first" here: https://share.smartnews.com/LgSUd

To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/nzVCm
Click to expand...
that lawyer is an arrogant DIK, "this was never about damages in the form of money" I call complete bullshite! I bet he got his money

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top