How in the ###^&*($ is the manufacturer responsible for the Sandy Hook deaths?
Don’t get me wrong, I am saddened by the deaths and truly don’t believe that assault style weapons should be made readily available to the general public.
Still just don’t get how the manufacturer is responsible. If they didn’t make the style of gun, someone else would.
As the suit has no merits this should not even be an issue. The logic of the suit runs along the same lines as suing Ford because a 4 foot person bought a F350 and could not see over the wheel causing an accident. Although I understand that the line was not intended to be interpreted literally I still like old Will, ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” was stated by Dick the Butcher in ”Henry VI,” Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.
Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy. A wrongful death suit will not bring back the deceased persons. The manufacturer of the gun is not responsible for the tragedy. Guns don’t kill people, guns don’t have a brain. People kill people. The shooter was mentally unstable. I compare these senseless killings to drunk driving. The individual who decided to get behind the wheel and causes an accident that kills a family is responsible for his/her bad decision. It’s not the vehicles fault the accident happened. We can’t blame the manufacturer of the car and sue them because of a bad choice made by a person.
I also agree to all of the above but look at the Like or Dislike votes.
Can one of you unresponsible people explain why a manufacturer is liable? Can they sue the car manufacturer because they rode to the school in it? The blue jean maker because that’s what they wore? The chicken ranch because the killers ate eggs for breakfast? The gas station where they bought gas for the trip?
No responsibility and greed is rampant in small brained people.
Who is John Galt?
I would argue that a submissible liability cause of action could be offered based upon negligence in the design and marketing of the weapons. The design is obvious clone of military assault weapons, that are manufactured solely for one purpose, that being a murder rifle. The advertising and packaging of these semi-automatic murder devices focuses entirely on the dynamic firepower of the weapon. The gun makers are or should be aware that these initiatives have served as constructive enticement for the nefarious use of their products in mass murders. American tort law has historically held strict liability on such behavior, in manner not entirely different from the 19th Century Railroad Turntable cases.
Whether or not you agree with my assertions is irrelevant. Juries should decide if liability flows to the gun makers, just as they do on all other product litigation
I originally thought the same as everyone else, the manufacturer should not be liable; but, Boonedoggle makes a great case. While I am still not sure the manufacturer should be held liable, there certainly seems to be reason to bring this case to a jury to decide.
A “murder rifle”? Seriously? We are basing lawsuits on how a gun looks? A gun maker focuses on the firepower? Say it ain’t so!
The Federal Law passed by Congress prohibits lawsuits exactly like this. There should be no “day in court” for this case as federal law overrides it for this very reason, that apparently emotion and how a gun looks is to blame.
Does Chevy get sued for people who drive drunk? Did we allege the car ads focused on the “car going fast” or the beer ads made “drinking seem fun”? What a lame argument.
I agree, sort of. The question is, was the design, manufacturing and advertisement of the weapon a promotion of mass murder? It would be like Chevy making a car that makes it easier to mow down pedestrians. Then yes, Chevy would be sued if pedestrians got mowed down. But you are correct, short of this analogy, you can’t blame a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. So was it misused, or did it do exactly what it was meant for? That’s a question for a jury, but it would be really difficult to prove this was the intent. There was a movie with Dustin Hoffman (runaway jury) where the gun manufacturer advertised their gun was “fingerprint resistant.” Regardless of the witnesses BS answer, that’s really pushing it. I doubt this case will have such a “smoking gun” (forgive the pun) but we wont know that until it plays out. If they don’t have or cannot find evidence of something that egregious it should be thrown out.
No, they aren’t being sued for how the gun looks, they are being sued for how it is designed, and what it can do. It is the only product shielded from this type of liability, which should be removed, allowing the market to force gun manufacturers to implement solutions to the gun problem in the US.
“Juries should decide if liability flows to the gun makers, just as they do on all other product litigation”
In “all other product litigation”, the manufacturer is held liable when its product fails to perform as intended thereby causing injury. Here, sadly, we can only wish that the product had failed to perform as intended.
That’s not really true. Look at VW for a simplistic example, their product worked exactly as designed, and harmed people, leaving them open to claims of liability. Also with guns the main people being harmed are not people buying or using guns, and if you sell a product that harms people who don’t use it, even when being used as designed, it is creating an externality and the company should be held liable.
I feel for the family’s that were hurt by this gun and the sadness that it brought but on the other hand the gun did no wrong it was the person behind it that did this .
I think that the United States needs to stop wack jobs like this guy form owning guns and leave the gun manufacturers alone they didn’t do it be mad at your public office leaders for making the gun laws a joke
I’m going to blame News Corp on this one. The frequency at which their programming airs on, attacks the endocrine systems of their viewership, thus shrinking their genitalia to the point at which they can no longer produce testosterone and need military grade weapons to show their veracity.
I am also worried those stating they use these Dubya Em Dees for hunting need that much fire power to shoot something that doesn’t fire back.
Why do we allow car makers to build cars to be used in the US that go 180 mph? The max mph in most states is 65 or 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be allowed to sue the car mfgrs for making a car that goes faster than the law allows? Especially when it kills innocent people?
Could it be freedom? Could it be for the recreational enjoyment of that freedom? There are race tracks that people can use them on. Just like there are legal gun ranges to allow law abiding citizens the freedom to shoot whatever legally obtained weapon they want to.
FYI, Boogereater, if you are calling these guns “dubya em dees”, than I guess GW Bush was not wrong after all about Iraq having them. We know they had those types of weapons.
Q: Why do we allow car makers to build cars to be used in the US that go 180 mph? The max mph in most states is 65 or 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be allowed to sue the car mfgrs for making a car that goes faster than the law allows? Especially when it kills innocent people?
A: I’m going to blame News Corp on this one. The frequency at which their programming airs on, attacks the endocrine systems of their viewership, thus shrinking their genitalia to the point at which they can no longer produce testosterone and need to show how passive aggressive they are at a right light, when they see a teenage girl walking on the side of the road, or when Kenny Chesney is on the radio.
No one would be complaining if they were using these WMD’s at the range for “target practice”
Cops can’t even hit the right targets and the they say they have professional training. Let’s give Cletus McJimJack an AR-15 who is divorced 3 times, 22 years old, homemade neck tats, his family tree is just the trunk, has 300 Credit Score but a 300 bowling average, and expect him to make rational decisions. Just don’t take freedom away.
The design of the rifle mimics the AR-15 – which is an Assault Rifle – why would anyone need to ever own an assault rifle if you are not a member of the military or in law enforcement? Why would we ever want a rifle, designed to assault people, be in the hands of the average person – sane or insane? Mentally stable or unstable? If you call yourself a hunter, why would you need that kind of fire power to take down a deer, bear, alligator, whatever. I would assume if you hunt it should be to feed your family and not eradicate a species. I think the sheer force of this weapon needs to be removed from the gun market completely. If this lawsuit somehow can achieve that, then I say let the lawyers sue & win and let the deaths of these children and teachers produce something that makes our society safer for all.
OMG: you say that gun used is designed to mimic the AR-15, but it only LOOKS like an AR-15. That’s as far as the mimic goes.
It doesn’t function much like the AR-15. It is the AR-15 that is an assault rifle as you point out. The AR-15 is not designed to take down deer, bear, or whatever. The AR-15 is fully automatic (or can be with a flick of a switch). The AR-15 is also not available to the public and has already been removed from the gun market! It also wasn’t used at Sandy Hook.
The gun used at Sandy Hook, on the other hand, only looks like the AR-15. It isn’t fully automatic since it can only shoot one bullet with each trigger pull (that’s why it’s called semi-automatic). And most of those types use a rather small caliber bullet (not sure about the specifics of the Sandy Hook weapon). It is designed to be used for target practice and for competition and for fun at the range.
It sounds like you’re ranting about the AR-15 and may be right I guess. But your comments are not really relevant for the Sandy Hook situation since an AR-15 was not used at all, only something that has the appearance of an AR-15.
All your criticisms are would apply to the fully automatic AR-15, but don’t really apply to a semi-automatic like the one used.
Surely some sense must come out of the number of incidents occurring with fire arms. Make the sale of fire arms regulated to the point you cannot just go into a store and purchase a weapon.
I do not know the legal side of the fire arms purchase in America but it seems to me as an outsider and living in New Zealand, where we have problems with fire arms as well but absolutely minuscule compared to America.
That as long as you have some measure of ID you can get what ever you want. the outcome is simple for every death sue the state. Once the government no matter who they be made of realizes the cost of life is more expensive that the loss of votes from stupid people and criminals cannot purchase guns at all.
The slaughter as we know it in America will become less prevalent. There will always be one in any society who manages to succeed in purchasing illegal arms but with the correct legislation and gun controls and time. One would hope America will become a better country with less violence and money having the ability to rule all.
How in the ###^&*($ is the manufacturer responsible for the Sandy Hook deaths?
Don’t get me wrong, I am saddened by the deaths and truly don’t believe that assault style weapons should be made readily available to the general public.
Still just don’t get how the manufacturer is responsible. If they didn’t make the style of gun, someone else would.
Just Sayin………
i see need to stop posting under this name as someone besides me posted using the same handle!
Sorry – didn’t realize you had the copyright for being confused. So terribly sorry to have stepped on your toes.
How is the manufacturer responsible for the use of a weapon?????
i see need to stop posting under this name as someone besides me posted using the same handle!
As the suit has no merits this should not even be an issue. The logic of the suit runs along the same lines as suing Ford because a 4 foot person bought a F350 and could not see over the wheel causing an accident. Although I understand that the line was not intended to be interpreted literally I still like old Will, ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” was stated by Dick the Butcher in ”Henry VI,” Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.
Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy. A wrongful death suit will not bring back the deceased persons. The manufacturer of the gun is not responsible for the tragedy. Guns don’t kill people, guns don’t have a brain. People kill people. The shooter was mentally unstable. I compare these senseless killings to drunk driving. The individual who decided to get behind the wheel and causes an accident that kills a family is responsible for his/her bad decision. It’s not the vehicles fault the accident happened. We can’t blame the manufacturer of the car and sue them because of a bad choice made by a person.
Ditto to all of the above!
I also agree to all of the above but look at the Like or Dislike votes.
Can one of you unresponsible people explain why a manufacturer is liable? Can they sue the car manufacturer because they rode to the school in it? The blue jean maker because that’s what they wore? The chicken ranch because the killers ate eggs for breakfast? The gas station where they bought gas for the trip?
No responsibility and greed is rampant in small brained people.
Who is John Galt?
I would argue that a submissible liability cause of action could be offered based upon negligence in the design and marketing of the weapons. The design is obvious clone of military assault weapons, that are manufactured solely for one purpose, that being a murder rifle. The advertising and packaging of these semi-automatic murder devices focuses entirely on the dynamic firepower of the weapon. The gun makers are or should be aware that these initiatives have served as constructive enticement for the nefarious use of their products in mass murders. American tort law has historically held strict liability on such behavior, in manner not entirely different from the 19th Century Railroad Turntable cases.
Whether or not you agree with my assertions is irrelevant. Juries should decide if liability flows to the gun makers, just as they do on all other product litigation
I originally thought the same as everyone else, the manufacturer should not be liable; but, Boonedoggle makes a great case. While I am still not sure the manufacturer should be held liable, there certainly seems to be reason to bring this case to a jury to decide.
A “murder rifle”? Seriously? We are basing lawsuits on how a gun looks? A gun maker focuses on the firepower? Say it ain’t so!
The Federal Law passed by Congress prohibits lawsuits exactly like this. There should be no “day in court” for this case as federal law overrides it for this very reason, that apparently emotion and how a gun looks is to blame.
Does Chevy get sued for people who drive drunk? Did we allege the car ads focused on the “car going fast” or the beer ads made “drinking seem fun”? What a lame argument.
I agree, sort of. The question is, was the design, manufacturing and advertisement of the weapon a promotion of mass murder? It would be like Chevy making a car that makes it easier to mow down pedestrians. Then yes, Chevy would be sued if pedestrians got mowed down. But you are correct, short of this analogy, you can’t blame a manufacturer for the misuse of their product. So was it misused, or did it do exactly what it was meant for? That’s a question for a jury, but it would be really difficult to prove this was the intent. There was a movie with Dustin Hoffman (runaway jury) where the gun manufacturer advertised their gun was “fingerprint resistant.” Regardless of the witnesses BS answer, that’s really pushing it. I doubt this case will have such a “smoking gun” (forgive the pun) but we wont know that until it plays out. If they don’t have or cannot find evidence of something that egregious it should be thrown out.
No, they aren’t being sued for how the gun looks, they are being sued for how it is designed, and what it can do. It is the only product shielded from this type of liability, which should be removed, allowing the market to force gun manufacturers to implement solutions to the gun problem in the US.
“Juries should decide if liability flows to the gun makers, just as they do on all other product litigation”
In “all other product litigation”, the manufacturer is held liable when its product fails to perform as intended thereby causing injury. Here, sadly, we can only wish that the product had failed to perform as intended.
That’s not really true. Look at VW for a simplistic example, their product worked exactly as designed, and harmed people, leaving them open to claims of liability. Also with guns the main people being harmed are not people buying or using guns, and if you sell a product that harms people who don’t use it, even when being used as designed, it is creating an externality and the company should be held liable.
Intervening cause doctrine
I feel for the family’s that were hurt by this gun and the sadness that it brought but on the other hand the gun did no wrong it was the person behind it that did this .
I think that the United States needs to stop wack jobs like this guy form owning guns and leave the gun manufacturers alone they didn’t do it be mad at your public office leaders for making the gun laws a joke
I’m going to blame News Corp on this one. The frequency at which their programming airs on, attacks the endocrine systems of their viewership, thus shrinking their genitalia to the point at which they can no longer produce testosterone and need military grade weapons to show their veracity.
I am also worried those stating they use these Dubya Em Dees for hunting need that much fire power to shoot something that doesn’t fire back.
Why do we allow car makers to build cars to be used in the US that go 180 mph? The max mph in most states is 65 or 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be allowed to sue the car mfgrs for making a car that goes faster than the law allows? Especially when it kills innocent people?
Could it be freedom? Could it be for the recreational enjoyment of that freedom? There are race tracks that people can use them on. Just like there are legal gun ranges to allow law abiding citizens the freedom to shoot whatever legally obtained weapon they want to.
FYI, Boogereater, if you are calling these guns “dubya em dees”, than I guess GW Bush was not wrong after all about Iraq having them. We know they had those types of weapons.
Q: Why do we allow car makers to build cars to be used in the US that go 180 mph? The max mph in most states is 65 or 70 mph? Shouldn’t we be allowed to sue the car mfgrs for making a car that goes faster than the law allows? Especially when it kills innocent people?
A: I’m going to blame News Corp on this one. The frequency at which their programming airs on, attacks the endocrine systems of their viewership, thus shrinking their genitalia to the point at which they can no longer produce testosterone and need to show how passive aggressive they are at a right light, when they see a teenage girl walking on the side of the road, or when Kenny Chesney is on the radio.
No one would be complaining if they were using these WMD’s at the range for “target practice”
Cops can’t even hit the right targets and the they say they have professional training. Let’s give Cletus McJimJack an AR-15 who is divorced 3 times, 22 years old, homemade neck tats, his family tree is just the trunk, has 300 Credit Score but a 300 bowling average, and expect him to make rational decisions. Just don’t take freedom away.
That may be one of the best posts I have ever read…ever!
Thanks Planet!
The “gun” cannot do anything; its the idiot who picks it up thats dangerous.
The design of the rifle mimics the AR-15 – which is an Assault Rifle – why would anyone need to ever own an assault rifle if you are not a member of the military or in law enforcement? Why would we ever want a rifle, designed to assault people, be in the hands of the average person – sane or insane? Mentally stable or unstable? If you call yourself a hunter, why would you need that kind of fire power to take down a deer, bear, alligator, whatever. I would assume if you hunt it should be to feed your family and not eradicate a species. I think the sheer force of this weapon needs to be removed from the gun market completely. If this lawsuit somehow can achieve that, then I say let the lawyers sue & win and let the deaths of these children and teachers produce something that makes our society safer for all.
Ban anything and all things dangerous:
ladders
guns
automobiles
bathtubs
electricity
skill saws
bicycles
motorcycles
hot water
swimming
skydiving
scuba diving
flying
stairs
dogs
horses
hunting
fishing
boating
etc….
etc….
etc….
OMG: you say that gun used is designed to mimic the AR-15, but it only LOOKS like an AR-15. That’s as far as the mimic goes.
It doesn’t function much like the AR-15. It is the AR-15 that is an assault rifle as you point out. The AR-15 is not designed to take down deer, bear, or whatever. The AR-15 is fully automatic (or can be with a flick of a switch). The AR-15 is also not available to the public and has already been removed from the gun market! It also wasn’t used at Sandy Hook.
The gun used at Sandy Hook, on the other hand, only looks like the AR-15. It isn’t fully automatic since it can only shoot one bullet with each trigger pull (that’s why it’s called semi-automatic). And most of those types use a rather small caliber bullet (not sure about the specifics of the Sandy Hook weapon). It is designed to be used for target practice and for competition and for fun at the range.
It sounds like you’re ranting about the AR-15 and may be right I guess. But your comments are not really relevant for the Sandy Hook situation since an AR-15 was not used at all, only something that has the appearance of an AR-15.
All your criticisms are would apply to the fully automatic AR-15, but don’t really apply to a semi-automatic like the one used.
Surely some sense must come out of the number of incidents occurring with fire arms. Make the sale of fire arms regulated to the point you cannot just go into a store and purchase a weapon.
I do not know the legal side of the fire arms purchase in America but it seems to me as an outsider and living in New Zealand, where we have problems with fire arms as well but absolutely minuscule compared to America.
That as long as you have some measure of ID you can get what ever you want. the outcome is simple for every death sue the state. Once the government no matter who they be made of realizes the cost of life is more expensive that the loss of votes from stupid people and criminals cannot purchase guns at all.
The slaughter as we know it in America will become less prevalent. There will always be one in any society who manages to succeed in purchasing illegal arms but with the correct legislation and gun controls and time. One would hope America will become a better country with less violence and money having the ability to rule all.