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.
Well, I guess I'd like to see an example of Remington marketing where they specifically glorify the weapon for young people or advocate murder or whatever else.
Methinks when the SCOTUS asks for the same thing, and no such marketing can be produced, this will be overturned, as it rightfully should be.
This case is idiocy. The ONLY reason the idiots are suing the gun manufacturer is because everyone else they could sue doesn't have a pot to urinate in.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun maker Remington can be sued over how it marketed the Bushmaster rifle used to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, a divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
Justices issued a 4-3 decision that reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit and overturned a lower court ruling that the lawsuit was prohibited by a 2005 federal law that shields gun manufacturers from liability in most cases when their products are used in crimes."
The law suit is attacking how Remington marketed the gun to younger people but when you think about it how many video games feature the so called assault weapons like the AR15 mowing down people?
I just don't see how they can find a company at fault when their product causes harm to others, not out of a default but by the purchaser using the product in a unsafe or unlawful manner.
I guess this means that if I buy a gallon of gas, take it home, dump it onto a pile of leave and toss a match into it I can then sue the gas station as well as the company that owns the refinery for the burns I suffer?
What if I go to Home Depot, buy a table saw and then cut my arm off? It sounds like I can now sue HD, and Dewalt for producing and selling a dangerous product while marketing it to everyone without a waiting period, without a need for permits or a background check...
This ruling is not going to bode well for other companies such as car manufacturers that feature their cars skidding sideways through city streets and portraying a law breaking attitude to boost excitement to young buyers. Yes there is a fine print disclaimer "Do not attempt" "closed course" etc etc... but who pays attention to that? I want to drifting through a city like they do on TV!
Is this court ruling over reach? Is it targeted at the Remington because of a political agenda?
So it's more about suing the company for how it marketed its product -- not about it producing the product.
No lawyer here so I can't debate the merits of the suit....but it most definitely is about the marketing and not the production.
It really isn't for the Newton shooting they are being sued -- it is for targeting youth with their marketing.......not exactly the same thing.
Sad , really sad. Would you feel the same way if this was the 1A they were doing this to ? Or actually any one of the other 27 Amendments? Probably not, but you don't like this one , so you don't care. SMH...
Excellent idea. Like cigarette manufac.....force a disclaimer on the side of every gun.." Firing into crowds or directly at a living being constitutes misuse of this firearm. Not responsible for consequences of intentional or non intentional misuse of this firearm"
Then...." Shooter" is aware that all legal liability is taken on by the consumer with the purchase .
Soo...if they marketed it incorrectly as many are discussing, what is the appropriate remedy? Because yeah I CAN see the point.
Im thinking a fine of 4X the cost of the relevant marketing campaign. That would seem reasonable. So probably what? 40K?
It doesn't work that way. If you marketed a drug off-label and 20 people died due to that off-label use or similar, the value is the loss, not the cost!
Surely you know this?
My friend had a situation where a company that made "duct hanger" - small strips of metal that cost about a buck, pay millions of dollars...and, it was for a product that wasn't defective.
Why didn't the judge just order them to give a replacement box of hangars after the place burned down?
Using your "rules", if I illegally shoot a bullet and cause 2 million dollar worth of medical issues, I should pay 4X the cost of the bullet, right?
Excellent idea. Like cigarette manufac.....force a disclaimer on the side of every gun.." Firing into crowds or directly at a living being constitutes misuse of this firearm. Not responsible for consequences of intentional or non intentional misuse of this firearm"
Then...." Shooter" is aware that all legal liability is taken on by the consumer with the purchase .
Closer to cars than cigs.
I know I have quite a bit of warnings and signing for all my licensing, buying and registration on my vehicles. Yet, I still have "freedom of navigation".
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.
