Sandy Hook Families Can Sue Gunmaker Remington, Court Rules

By , and | March 15, 2019

  • March 15, 2019 at 9:38 am
    K Hill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    People should be able to sue those people suing Remington for violation of their 2nd Amendment civil rights if they win the suit.

  • March 15, 2019 at 12:37 pm
    real_underwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 7

    When are the Sandy Hook families going to sue the witch doctor psychologists for drugging up kids with dangerous mind-altering chemicals that turn innocent children into deranged psychopaths when they stop taking these drugs cold turkey?

    Everyone knows it is these drugged-up kids who are killing other kids at school, and our public schools will never stop forcing our children to submit to these witch doctors who get paid lots of our tax money to prescribe ADHD drugs that turn our kids into stone cold killers.

    • March 20, 2019 at 5:29 pm
      libra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      Dear “real_underwriter” !@#$&* I have 2 kids a husband and a grandkid who need their ADHD meds. Yes there are risks, and one kid , now 30, is in a lot of trouble now with inappropriate self-medication. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with how guns are advertised, which is the subject of the suit. If drug abuse has hurt you or someone you love, get help. But stop spewing this hatefulness.

    • March 21, 2019 at 11:39 am
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      @real – I don’t think that ADHD medications are turning anyone into ‘stone cold killers’. If that were the case, our world would resemble one of those lame zombie flicks, and it does not. The kid that carried out the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook had a lot of issues, and in his case ADD/ADHD wasn’t what drove him to do what he did.
      Before you post something like you did, maybe you should learn a little bit about it.

  • March 15, 2019 at 1:19 pm
    Dave says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 44
    Thumb down 4

    There is a Federal Law striking down such suits. Whatever verdict found against the gun manufacturer in state court will be struck down.

  • March 15, 2019 at 1:19 pm
    Jack says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 46
    Thumb down 6

    You do realize this will set precedent for a manufacturer of anything to get sued for damages regardless of the intended use of the product? Expect prices for everything you purchase to increase as the cost of legal defense gets passed on to you.

    • March 20, 2019 at 5:25 pm
      libra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      Jack….you do realize that product liability is already a thing. Manufacturers have to label everything for the harm it can do, and often some of the odder warnings are because they were sued by someone who used the item improperly and was not forewarned.

      • April 2, 2019 at 9:03 am
        mrbob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Libra,
        Please explain to me what malfunction occurred in this case. Had the weapon in question malfunctioned there would certainly have been less loss of life. If you had ever purchased a firearm of any type you would know that all gun owners manuals discuss in detail how to safely operate the weapon. The fact that a psychopath chose to use the consumer product in the manner he did is not the responsibility of the manufacturer any more than someone purposely driving a car or truck into a group of people.

  • March 15, 2019 at 2:47 pm
    Faye says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 4

    What’s next? Auto manufacturers, distillers, vineyards, and breweries for drunk driving? Don’t forget the gas stations and oil companies for providing the fuel for those cars.

  • March 15, 2019 at 2:48 pm
    Mickey says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 32
    Thumb down 3

    I don’t see how this could possibly be Remington’s fault. Adam Lanza used firearms his mother purchased legally. His mother did not commit these crimes. He took those firearms without permission and he is the one responsible for this crime. Had he used a van packed with explosives, would the families then sue the auto maker? This is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit that will waste money that could be better spent on gun safety education, or mental health treatment.

  • March 15, 2019 at 3:23 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 12

    Let me guess the political leanings of the judge in this case. Hmmm. Let’s see . . .
    The court making up new laws. Anti-gun. Connecticut. Hmmmmmm.
    Democracy? Allowing the elected representatives to make new laws? Predictable laws that make sense? Actual causal connection between action and injury?
    SO old fashioned for our lefty friends.

  • March 16, 2019 at 8:21 am
    retired risk manager says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 3

    Craig: All you had to say was, “Connecticut”. The diversity between the plaintiffs and Remington means that the suit will be transferred to the federal courts. A simple motion by the defense SHOULD result in immediate dismissal per federal law. This is nothing more than an extortion law suit. Here is Texas, certain Bar rules would result in the plaintiff attorneys being held personally liable for ALL of Remington’s legal costs. But just look at the Senators from this state. A Vietnam vet wannabe.

  • March 18, 2019 at 10:15 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    “In a first-of-a-kind decision….. (CT) Supreme Court said …. (victims) families could sue for ‘wrongful’ marketing… under a STATE unfair marketing practices law. ”

    The above single sentence begs several questions:

    1. Why haven’t other (credible) courts previously tried (pardon the pun, but this ruling is subject to an over-ruling, thus it isn’t ‘made & sustained’ at this point in time) such a ruling under their state’s unfair marketing practices laws? Hint: see parenthetic comment embedded in the question.

    2. Why is the CT Supreme Court looking to overrule a prior court ruling?; i.e. their motive. Is it pride, a quest for justice, or politically motivated?

    3. How often does ‘wrongful’ marketing, however it is defined, occur?

    4. Do all, some, or no STATE unfair marketing practices laws contradict Federal Anti-trust laws, unfair marketing (across state lines) laws, or prior court (State or Federal) rulings?

    5. What is the underlying purpose of a Federal law protecting the gun industry from liability?
    Hint: ownership of an auto, which is a deadly instrument if used improperly, isn’t a right under the US Constitution.

  • March 18, 2019 at 8:29 pm
    Shawn C McKibben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Apparently the plaintiffs forgot that Adam Lanza never purchased these firearms. It was his mothers. You know, the one that he killed and took the rifle from? Funny thing about this logic used in the case. By the same token we’d be able to sue the doctor and the pharmaceutical company too.

  • March 20, 2019 at 11:16 am
    Stush says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 6

    Boo hoo! the gun lobby’s effort to forestall lawsuits is finally being challenged. I can’t see why one industry should enjoy such an expansive protection while other manufacturers have to face lawsuits when some knucklehead hurts himself using a product as intended. I say let the suit go forward and lets make a new precedent: if you want to market a product that when used as directed can kill others, either make a safer product or educate the public better. Or make a settlement like the tobacco companies did. Once everyone owns up to their responsibilities, the opposition will die down. The gun lobby instead had the game rigged but now the boogie man is finally out. I say good for the kids who suffer at the hands of anyone who acts irresponsibly! It is about time that justice is brought back into the court room.

    • March 20, 2019 at 5:23 pm
      libra says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 6

      Stush, you are so right. The other commentators here have missed the point- the point is how the guns were marketed. They are not advertised for anything but destruction of human life.

      • March 20, 2019 at 6:11 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 4

        You two are nuts. Guns are never marketed “for the destruction of human life”. They are marketed for hunting and self-defense and 99.9% of the time, that is what they are used for.

        The logic of making gun makers responsible for the intentional misuse of the firearm would make every company on Earth responsible for misuse of their product.

        Murder by knife: sue the knife maker. Using rat poison to kill someone: sue the maker of rat poison. Etc. Etc. Etc.

        Truly. The left is insane.

      • March 21, 2019 at 11:48 am
        Jax Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        @libra, you and Stush would make great left-wing socialists. Your comment is completely wrong and Stush obviously is an ‘anti-gun’ wacko……..maybe you are too ?
        The good news is this: The judge in Conn. might be patting himself on the back for this inane decision, but the next court this bumps into is going to dismiss it out of hand. It’s over.
        The lawyers ‘representing ‘ the families are hoping that the extortion play will work and they can coerce Remington, etal, into some kind of settlement. And that, boys and girls, ain’t gonna happen !!

  • March 28, 2019 at 12:50 pm
    DC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    SJW state supreme court justices. What a ridiculous ruling.

  • April 2, 2019 at 9:10 am
    mrbob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I may have missed the add touting this product as being effective for murdering anyone but if there was such an add then I can certainly support the ruling. (sarcasm intended) It is one huge leap from an add showing guys in camo to this is a great product to be used as it was by a mentally ill individual.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*