Ct rules Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook

[pl411]

The following is being reported on a legal newswire:

BREAKING: Remington Can Be Sued Over Sandy Hook Shooting, Court Rules

Today a divided Connecticut Supreme Court revived a suit over the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, ruling that gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle that was used in the massacre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[njineermike]

I'm going to Connecticut and suing Johnnie Walker for distilling booze strong enough to make me sleep with ugly women.

[Milsurp1]

This will get appealed to the USSC. There should be enough votes to hear the case now.

[Rivers]

More feel-good legislating from the bench.

[Dirk Tungsten]

More virtue signaling from the leftoids on the court. Pretty sure the federal PLCFA precludes this.

[ChuckDizzle]

Wow, look at all the distinguished graduates of the Calguns School of Law...

The court ruled they CAN be sued, not that they should be sued or are culpable.

[ironhorse1]

So if we use that same logic then car makers can be sued for accidents based upon marketing fast cars.

I'm pretty sure the suit goes nowhere because gunmakers are protected by law.

The court is leaning heavy on the however clause in the law. I don't remember if any suit has been successful since the law was passed.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

[ChuckDizzle]

Yes, and any codified immunity for certain businesses or people should be done away with.

The ability to take legal action is a separate legal issue than the merits of a legal action. Preemptively blocking civil claims is a bad business.

Most people can't differentiate between the two concepts, hence why a certain aptitude is required to practice and study law.

[njineermike]

Yes, and any codified immunity for certain businesses or people should be done away with.

The ability to take legal action is a separate legal issue than the merits of a legal action. Preemptively blocking civil claims is a bad business.

Most people can't differentiate between the two concepts, hence why a certain aptitude is required to practice and study law.

This is the equivalent of suing Chevy for making cars people can drive while drunk. Misuse of an product is entirely different than negligence due to faulty design. Taurus just lost a lawsuit for exactly that. It appears aptitude for law didn't make all the way to you.

[ChuckDizzle]

This is the equivalent of suing Chevy for making cars people can drive while drunk. Misuse of an product is entirely different than negligence due to faulty design. Taurus just lost a lawsuit for exactly that. It appears aptitude for law didn't make all the way to you.

This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.

[Tere_Hanges]

Thats really sad to see people so overcome with grief and anger that they let charlatan lawyers con them out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for what pretty much amounts to as a frivolous lawsuit. Cant believe the CT court was so heartless to let them continue to be conned. This will be a slam dunk win for Remington.

Wont the plaintiffs have to pay Remington's legal fees, when Remington wins?

[TMB 1]

This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.

Who get sued in the Manhattan truck attack, the rental place that rented truck, the truck manufacturer or both?

[njineermike]

This is a great example of a failure to distinguish between the merits of a case and procedural standing to make a claim.

Gun manufacturers do not have immunity for faulty product design any more than auto manufacturers. Taurus proved that

[Phalanx20mm]

How do you sue over a media False Flag event?

[ChuckDizzle]

Thats really sad to see people so overcome with grief and anger that they let charlatan lawyers con them out of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for what pretty much amounts to as a frivolous lawsuit. Cant believe the CT court was so heartless to let them continue to be conned. This will be a slam dunk win for Remington.

Wont the plaintiffs have to pay Remington's legal fees, when Remington wins?

Depends on a few factors, but "frivolous" lawsuits can result in a plaintiff being liable for litigation expenses.

I'm not familiar with any of the facts in alleged by the plaintiffs, or sure what claims are being made, but it would seem a stretch that Remmington will be found liable.

The issue right now is if these plaintiffs CAN sue, not if they should win.