Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones on that horrible day; but this is totally shameful, when have we moved away from personal responsibility for your own actions.
That rife could not have done anything without a person pulling the trigger. And the AR style rife is a very common sporting rifle, that cosmetically looks like it's Military Counter Part.
So, when a driver of a vehicle runs a stop sign and kills somebody or more than one person, is it the vehicle and automaker's fault? I guess this is the equivalent of when we hear about the media reports saying "a car ran a stop sign."
So, when a driver of a vehicle runs a stop sign and kills somebody or more than one person, is it the vehicle and automaker's fault? I guess this is the equivalent of when we hear about the media reports saying "a car ran a stop sign."
Exactly there is still a person behind the wheel of the car driving it.
From what I read, the mother did not die trying to keep the guns away from her son. In fact the kid Adam had the key or combination to where the guns were kept and he even had a check for his birthday written out to buy another handgun. She was an idiot of the first order.I also read she was shot in her sleep. If she were not killed I bet she would be held responsible for letting her severely autistic son have access to weapons. Its also strange that she could not talk directly to her son Adam, she would communicate with him even when a room away by text message. There is one voice recording of Adam where he called in to a radio show and talked about the chimpanzee who ripped the face off the owners friend. Its very mechanical and strange.
From the news I was watching it seems this so called judge is trying to pawn it off on its too early to dismiss the case. That it should not be dismissed this early in the process. I have no idea if she is just after keeping it in the news and getting some attention, but she has to know this will get knocked down. The expense runs both ways. So who is paying for the massive amount of time on the plaintiffs side? Are the Sandy Hook parents footing the bill? Or are the attorneys anti gun and doing it on contingent?
The other question I have and I may be able to find something on line is, what is so dangerous about the AR, and the Remington AR in particular? Is it legal to sue one company that makes a product and not another that makes the same exact thing. Can you sue Jack for making whiskey and not Makers Mark?
Also the reason the lawful commerce act was even made a law was not to give the gun industry special treatment but because the gun industry was getting special treatment in the sense that every tom dick and asshat was suing them because of the most stupid of reasons. I can not remember if it went to trial but in San Francisco there was talk on a couple of news shows about suing the company that made the Tec9 for making so called "finger print resistant finish"
So the reason for the law was to protect an American industry from the constant barrage of frivolous court suits.
Quote:
A designation of liability by which members of a group are either individually or mutually responsible to a party in whose favor a judgment has been awarded. Quote:
Joint and several liability is a form of liability that is used in civil cases where two or more people are found liable for damages. The winning plaintiff in such a case may collect the entire judgment from any one of the parties, or from any and all of the parties in various amounts until the judgment is paid in full.
In other words, if any of the defendants do not have enough money or assets to pay an equal share of the award, the other defendants must make up the difference.
Defendants in a civil suit can be held jointly and severally liable only if their concurrent acts brought about the harm to the plaintiff. The acts of the defendants do not have to be simultaneous: they must simply contribute to the same event. For example, assume that an electrician negligently installs an electrical line. Years later, another electrician inspects the line and approves it. When the plaintiff is subsequently injured by a short circuit in the line, the plaintiff may sue both electricians and hold them jointly and severally liable.
....snipped.....
This little goody helped to bring down general aviation in the US, regardless of what some would say. They made general aviation manufacturers liable, even with pilot error, going all the way back to when the plane left the line, not withstanding that the manufacturer did not know whether required maintenance was performed, etc, etc, etc. The law went after the deep pockets with a vengeance. Piper Aircraft has never completely recovered
Product liability lawsuits against general aviation manufacturers has often been blamed for bringing the industry to the verge of extinction. Certainly some recent jury awards seem to defy all logic and common sense. But that's largely the result of state product liability laws that implement a doctrine of "strict liability" for manufacturers and make no real distinction between aircraft (designed for use by highly-trained and licensed pilots) and ordinary consumer products like automobiles, refrigerators and children's toys.
Effective April 26, 2006, the Florida Legislature eliminated the last vestige of joint and several liability.[1] Florida has now joined the minority of jurisdictions that have completely abolished joint and several liability. Although this move has brought dramatic change and controversy, it was no surprise. The attempt at abolition actually began nearly twenty years ago and has been heavily lobbied by Florida's "Big Businesses." This article will address the impact of the elimination of joint and several liability, and the effect this change in the law will have on subrogation in Florida.
Joint and several liability allows victims to recover fully for their injuries in situations where full recovery might otherwise be unavailable. A perfect example is the widely publicized case of Walt Disney World v. Wood,[2]which has been speculated as a driving force in the elimination of joint and several liability. In Wood, Disney World was found to be one percent at fault and another defendant eighty-five percent at fault, yet Disney World was held responsible for the entire judgment amount due to the doctrine of joint and several liability. Since Wood, the Florida Legislature had modified the statute several times, eventually allowing for joint and several liability only when the defendant was at least ten percent at fault, and further capping the damages for which the defendant could be held liable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Joint and several liability
