Judge dismisses lawsuit against Remington
The Associated Press reports that State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms lawyers to dismiss the lawsuit by Newtown, CT families to punish Remington for manufacturing the rifle used by a shooter to kill 26 people at an Elementary school nearly four years ago.
The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine. Their lawyer vowed an immediate appeal of Friday’s ruling.
The judge agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.
Advocates for gun control and against gun violence have criticized the law as special protection for gun makers.
The people responsible for the murders are all dead – the shooter and his mother, the owner of the weapon – so this is nothing more than a scramble for the cash. The survivors are doing nothing more than the politicians did when they tried to use the tragic event as an excuse to punish legal gun owners. They are sullying the memory of the deceased.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Talk about a slippery slope. If this lawsuit was allowed, what would happen to Ford or Chevrolet or Toyota, etc., when anyone died from a vehicle-related event?
Not to mention, Ginsu and Chicago Cutlery. Stanley hammers. Tons of money out there.
I saw somewhere that there were more murders committed with hammers than with guns.
I can’t remember where I saw this and I am too old and lazy to look it up.
Firearms are the number one weapon for committing murders in the US followed closely by knives.
If you break it down by types of fires more people probably are killed by hammers than AR 15s
Rifles are a tiny percentage of firearms deaths, both homicide and suicide.
But don’t let that stop the narrative.
More hammers,fists,feet used than rifles.
Right – someone dies in an armed robbery, sue Ford for manufacturing the getaway car. Sue Adidas for making the shoes the perps used to run to the car. Sue Levi’s for making the bandannas the robbers tied over their faces.
If someone uses a legal product for an illegal purpose, the fault is on the user, not the manufacturer. If the plaintiffs maintain the product should be illegal, their beef is with the government, not the manufacturer.
God forbid you get in a wreck involving a Mustang or Camaro: high performance professional-grade vehicles that have no place in the hands of civilian motorists!
How about some other martial innovations, like ambulances, helicopters, handheld wireless communication devices, the emergency medical technician concept, the paramedic concept, or that of personal protective equipment for hazardous work? All of these things and many more were invented for use on the battlefield. Where would we be without any of them?
Or worse yet, a Corvette! Those cars don’t have the “shoulder thingy that goes up,” but they have a button you can push to turn off active handling and traction control, which can make the car a loose cannon if you push the accelerator to the floor with even a small steering input.
Careful, dude. Even suggesting dropping the hammer on a big-block Corvette with no steering or traction control is a sign of “toxic masculinity.” You could be sentenced to five years driving a pink Prius with a Hello Kitty bumper sticker…
Thanks for the warning. Maybe that is why my salesman (the dealer Corvette specialist) instructed me: “See that button in the middle of the driving mode knob; never push that button. If you do, bad things will happen to you and the car.”
That’s funny. “see that button? never push that button” How many guys are going to resist that
That is probably part of the secret progressive plot to get us out of our cool cars and depending upon ‘puter driven electric Ubers for transportation.
Thisis all bullshyt..and these so called families disgrace the memory of their kids….what greedy culls imho
Can/will Remington counter-sue for court costs? Possibly not the families, I grieve for their losses. But the lawers who egged on the families to set up this frivolous lawsuit in the first place. Bitch slap them back into the poverty they damned well deserve.
I don’t look at this as a frivolous lawsuit. Someone was blamed for creating a product that was misused by somebody else and a lot of people are dead because of it. This sets a precedent that will be looked at in other, similar events.
Stealing my car and using it as a getaway vehicle in a series of bank robberies in which people get killed doesn’t make ME responsible for what the thieves do, nor does it make Ford responsible for building and selling my stolen vehicle.
But there are people who are willing to blame anyone they see for what went wrong, instead of accepting the reality that it was NOT the fault of the manufacturer, the owner, or the object used. They don’t want that part of reality because then no one gets punished.
And Jonn is absolutely right in saying it was nothing but a scramble for cash.
I remember an article a few years ago where some lowlife intentionally rammed his car into a Jewish Day Care Center. When asked why he did it he said he thought there were too many Jews in the world. Nobody sued the car’s manufacturer back then either. Cars and trucks are intentionally misused but we still never hear of their manufacturers being sued, when was the last time anyone heard of Louisville Slugger being sued because someone got beaten to death with one?
There were more plaintiffs when the case started but a few dropped out when warned by other attorneys that there was a very good chance to lose and they would then be responsible for court costs and attorney fees.
They (defendants) can seek Rule 11 sanctions (attorneys’ fees) against the losing parties and their attorneys; but the chances of success are slim. They would have to prove the suit was so frivolous no reasonable attorney would file it. As a matter of right, the defendants are entitled to a judgment for court costs (not including attorneys’s fees) as the prevailing parties. No separate suit for costs is necessary. Absent Rule 11 sanctions, the cost judgment will only be against the family members who are plaintiffs in the suit.
Absent a defective product or criminal conduct on the part of the firearms manufacturer, the suit was explicitly banned by Federal law (15 USC 7901-7903). Further, two different Federal courts have previously ruled against the legality such suits (Ileto v. Glock, 2010, and Brady Center et a. v. Lucky Gunner, 2012). The SCOTUS also refused to consider an appeal relating to Ileto v. Glock, thus implicitly endorsing that decision.
Seems to me that any reasonable attorney would have told the plaintiffs that and refused to take the case – unless said attorney was either an ideologue looking for a sympathetic venue or had been guaranteed a payday by someone with an agenda and deep pockets. I think there’s a fair chance the plaintiffs and their attorneys could be sanctioned here.
I would agree, except for the fact that this is a CT state court ruling, which I had overlooked when I originally read Jonn’s post. (I erroneously assumed this was a federal district court ruling.) Unless CT has a strong sanctions statute, I don’t see the plaintiffs or their attorneys getting tagged. I suspect these federal cases you cite are the reason suit was filed in state court vs. federal court. I also believe some ideologues and some anti-gun $$$$$ were involved in the decisions to bring this case. I have been painfully familiar with how contingent fees work for over 39 years and I don’t see a solely contingent fee motivating a smart plaintiffs’ attorney to file this case, given the current state of product liability law re firearms.
I have found in both state and federal courts most judges are quite reluctant to impose sanctions on losing plaintiffs or their attorneys. Look at how many times Judges have refused to sanction a certain disbarred attorney who specializes in frivolous litigation.
They should sue the school district for lack of security while children are present. Maybe then they will see the wisdom of armed guards
in public schools. Nah, that wouldn’t fit the
narrative.
“They should sue the school district for lack of security while children are present.”
This.
My children are protected by heavily-armed security (me) when they’re at home. Why should they be any less protected at school?
I’m pretty sure some victims in Aurora CO tried to sue the movie theater for lack of security.
And a few of the families that sued got stuck with the bill – from the LA Slimes:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-batman-shooting-lawsuit-20160822-snap-story.html
Yes, they did. Lack of adequate security personal injury suits are not uncommon in California. I have defended several of them. One went to trial for six weeks. After the defense jury verdict, I obtained a court cost judgment against the plaintiffs for over $24K, but there was no way to collect it.
Lawsuits like this one happen when lawyers get involved.
Especially ones like that who slobber and drool while thinking of nothing other than milking money from what they see as deep pockets. IMHO they’re a very Bernathian breed that unfortunately gets mistaken for human beings, otherwise they could be declared a Nuisance Species and we could cull the herd!
Lawsuits like this are about as sensible as family suing razor blade manufacturers after a member commits suicide with one.
I was just thinking today how every other commercial on TV around here is an ad for another cheap slip ‘n fall attorney offering big cash compensation for all kinds of stupid shit.
Reach out and sue someone.
Adam Carrolla made a comment that during the 1970’s, daytime television was filled with commercials on learning to drive tractor trailers and fixing HVACs. You know, skills that would prevent you from spending all day watching commercials about acquiring skills. These days, all of the commercials are from law firms that will sue anyone and everyone on your behalf, for transgressions real and imagined. You may have been exposed to cooties, AND NOT EVEN KNOW IT! You deserve compensation.
So much for my plan to sue McDonald’s for making me fat. My dastardly plan foiled again!!!!
Sue the spoon and fork makers instead! It’s obviously their fault!
The decision is available though the CT case search, for those interested. It’s mostly dead-horse beating but I enjoyed that the plaintiff’s complaint (33 counts worth) asserted that the makers and sellers of the rifle at issue “know that civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s….” (I thought you would like that.) Also–and this was news to me–the AR-15 was bought by the killer’s mother in order to give it to him or share it with him! That’s bullshit, I’m sure, but if true, there’s the negligent entrustment. BTW, the plaintiffs numbered 10, meaning most of the victims did not go for the Free Cheese, I’m happy to say. I’m also happy to say that the manhours that went into this dreamland suit netted the attorneys nothing.
Last item. Anyone know of a single, solitary military force that uses the AR-15? It’s for military use, you know.
The only potential defendant for a claim of negligent entrustment would be the mother of the shooter. But I recall she had a gun safe or other locking container. Unfortunately, it was left unlocked or he knew where the key was located. Anyway, she never “entrusted” the subject guns to him on the day of the crimes. Such a claim against her is almost as frivolous as the product liability claim against the manufacturer. The problem with all such claims is that the product has neither a design defect nor manufacturing defect. To say it has a design defect one would have to logically admit that all semiautomatic rifles of similar calibers are dangerously defective. Contrary to the media memes, the features of the scary black rifles, the pistol grips, bayonet studs, collapsing stocks, magazines, etcetera, don’t make them anymore dangerous or deadly than any other semi-auto rifle.
The goal was not money. The goal was a precedent that a) semi autos are too dangerous for civilians and b) there is no right to own anything “too dangerous” under the second amendment because it does not protect any individuals outside the government.
Money was simply a hammer to get the defendants to fold and agree, and make others fear more of same, thus an effective ban by lawsuit where legislation had failed.
These assholes won’t stop until they reinstate Jim Crow, which is their goal. Priviledges for the powerful, and submission by the serfs.
11-B. If you think for one second that the attys’ goal was not money, you’re kidding yourself. It was money and lots of it. They ain’t gettin’ paid for losing after more than two years of work and the take would have been monstrous. Beyond the case, now tossed, sure the anti-constitutionalists wanted the win. And they will get it in another case and another forum once Wide Load, should she prevail next month, gets to put one, two–perhaps three (!)–more progressive/commie lawyers on the Supreme Court.
I do not believe for a minute that this is simple ambulance chasing for loot.
There are probably a couple of factors in play in addition to “loot.” Some of the lawyers, if not all, are likely progtards who want guns banned. In addition, many are media attention whores, looking to make a name for themselves. The only ones getting paid on this case are the defense attorneys, unless the Soros people and their ilk (Bloomberg gang) were helping finance the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Ambulance chasing? No. Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder have been in the legal business for 75+ years. They have no need to chase ambos b/c they make a fortune in malpractice suits. Please note that the firm did not waive its fees for this case or take it pro bono. It took it to make money, lots and lots and lots of money.
Well then, the $64K question is who is paying them their fees. This firm is certainly not going to make a contingent fee off this case, given the state of product liability law re firearms. I doubt the families were paying them their hourly rate, let alone the costs. Just economic motivation makes no sense for this kind of case without someone fronting the litigation costs and fees. No liability for gun manufacturers in this type of case is settled law.
My first guess would be Bloomberg followed closely by Soros.
The attorneys involved on the plaintiff’s side may or may not have been motivated by money (there are a fair number of anti-gun ideologues in the legal field). However, that was not the motivation of whoever was bankrolling the suit. Whoever was funding this was indeed doing so for ideological reasons.
I also wonder how much Soros and/or Bloomberg money was used to bankroll that junk lawsuit.
So this one got tossed and our least favorite fuckwad birdbath also got all of his lawsuits tossed because of the same nature of them.
He tried to sue everyone for his failure to read the friggin’ gas gauge or perform the most basic check on any plane before it’s flown. Use the check stick and check the gas.
So it would appear that this isn’t a precedent…
I just wish that fuck would go away…
Don’t worry, nature will take it’s course with him.
The only problem then will be the line to piss on his grave.
I maintain someone was hoping that life would imitate art and make them filthy rich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury